The Manhattan Project: Difference between revisions

Line 182:

This is classic '''confirmation bias.''' Our brains naturally search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms our preexisting beliefs, while completely discarding evidence that contradicts them.

=== An internal contradiction he doesn't notice ===

Courchained argues that the Nicolaitan spirit, the "image of the beast," is precisely the impulse to "settle disputes" by declaring who's right, elevating a teaching authority over the people, and "casting out those who would not agree." Councils, creeds, votes = the beast.

But the Message does exactly this, and Branham did it in the sharpest possible terms. Branham didn't merely offer a view; he said those who believe the Trinity are "possessed by the devil" and "you're lost," and he called the denominations the mark of the beast. That is the most extreme possible "casting out of those who won't agree." Courchaine praises Branham's tolerance ("find that brother and go to his church") while standing inside a system whose founder consigned Trinitarians to damnation. By Courchaine's own definition of the beast, the Message qualifies. He's applied the test to everyone except the one group it most obviously indicts, which is the very thing he warned against: "question everything except the person telling you to question everything."

=== The Pragmatic Fallacy: ''It brought millions to Jesus, therefore it's true'' ===

His climactic proof is testimonial and pragmatic: the Message introduced him to Jesus, it's brought millions to Christ, and that is "beyond dispute" and "THUS SAITH THE LORD."

Two problems. First, even granting the sincerity, this is a textbook pragmatic fallacy - "it works, therefore it is true."

Results are never a guarantee of truth. Whether something works and whether it is true are two very different issues.

Anytime someone says... ''Try Jesus 'cause it works,'' he has committed a fallacy. Plenty of movements produce changed lives and sincere devotion, including ones Courchaine would call false. I am personally aware of:

* A Muslim man who claims Islam is true because he was miraculously delivered from drug addiction.

* A Mormon man who knows that the LDS religion is true because he experienced a "burning in his bosom."

* A Roman Catholic man who was an alcoholic but was delivered instantaneously from his addiction through the power of Jesus.

Based on the above, Courchaine would have to accept that Islam, Mormonism and Catholicism are all the truth.

Fruit in the sense of transformed affections is not the same as a true prophetic claim. Branham's claim wasn't "I'll introduce you to Jesus." It was "I am the prophet of Malachi 4:5, the angel of Revelation 10:7, and to reject my message is the mark of the beast." That claim is either true or false on the evidence, and no number of testimonies settles it.

Second, notice the quiet substitution. The thing that's "beyond dispute" (that the Message meant something to him personally) is smuggled in to vouch for the thing that is very much in dispute (that Branham was who he said he was). Those are two different claims. Conceding the first costs the critic nothing and proves nothing about the second.

= There really is a true answer =

Line 220:

Line 243:

----

~~=== The Pragmatic Fallacy: ''It brought millions to Jesus, therefore it's true'' ===~~

~~His climactic proof is testimonial and pragmatic: the Message introduced him to Jesus, it's brought millions to Christ, and that is "beyond dispute" and "THUS SAITH THE LORD."~~

~~Two problems. First, even granting the sincerity, this is a textbook pragmatic fallacy - "it works, therefore it is true."~~

~~Results are never a guarantee of truth. Whether something works and whether it is true are two very different issues.~~

Anytime someone says... ''Try Jesus 'cause it works,'' he has committed a fallacy. Plenty of movements produce changed lives and sincere devotion, including ones Courchaine would call false. I am personally aware of:

* A Muslim man who claims Islam is true because he was miraculously delivered from drug addiction.

* A Mormon man who knows that the LDS religion is true because he experienced a "burning in his bosom."

* A Roman Catholic man who was an alcoholic but was delivered instantaneously from his addiction through the power of Jesus.

~~Based on the above, Courchaine would have to accept that Islam, Mormonism and Catholicism are all the truth.~~

Fruit in the sense of transformed affections is not the same as a true prophetic claim. Branham's claim wasn't "I'll introduce you to Jesus." It was "I am the prophet of Malachi 4:5, the angel of Revelation 10:7, and to reject my message is the mark of the beast." That claim is either true or false on the evidence, and no number of testimonies settles it.

Second, notice the quiet substitution. The thing that's "beyond dispute" (that the Message meant something to him personally) is smuggled in to vouch for the thing that is very much in dispute (that Branham was who he said he was). Those are two different claims. Conceding the first costs the critic nothing and proves nothing about the second.

~~=== The Malachi / Revelation 10:7 word-chain ===~~

Courchaine repeats the familiar Message move: ''Malachi'' = "my messenger," ''mal'ak'' = "messenger" = "angel," Revelation 10:7 speaks of the seventh "angel," therefore the threads tie together into a single end-time Gentile prophet.

We dismantled the substance of this argument in ''Under the Halo.'' It's an equivocation (a term shifting meaning mid-argument). "Angel/messenger" is made to carry Branham across from Malachi to Revelation 10 by treating a translation overlap as if it were an identity of referents. But we show in ''Under The Halo'', the Greek of Revelation 10:7 ties the seventh angel to the seventh ''trumpet'' (Rev. 11:15), and Branham's own claim that the text says "the message angel, not the trumpet angel" is simply not what the Greek says, a point confirmed by the ESV, HCSB, and NLT renderings of the passage. Courchaine inherits the conclusion without re-examining the exegesis. He's building the roof on a foundation we've already shown to be unsound.

Courchaine asserts Malachi 4 "happened" and that Branham fulfilled it, but his ''only'' stated evidence is, again, personal, "the message of Brother Branham definitively brought my heart back to him." That's the pragmatic fallacy doing the exegetical work that the text can't.

~~=== An internal contradiction he doesn't notice ===~~

This one is worth pointing out because it's his own words turning on him. He argues that the Nicolaitan spirit, the "image of the beast," is precisely the impulse to "settle disputes" by declaring who's right, elevating a teaching authority over the people, and "casting out those who would not agree." Councils, creeds, votes: beast.

But the Message does exactly this, and Branham did it in the sharpest possible terms. Branham didn't merely offer a view; he said those who believe the Trinity are "possessed by the devil" and "you're lost," and he called the denominations the mark of the beast. That is the most extreme possible "casting out of those who won't agree." Courchaine praises Branham's tolerance ("find that brother and go to his church") while standing inside a system whose founder consigned Trinitarians to damnation. By Courchaine's own definition of the beast, the Message qualifies. He's applied the test to everyone except the one group it most obviously indicts, which is the very thing he warned against: "question everything except the person telling you to question everything."

=God and logic=

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 This is classic '''confirmation bias.''' Our brains naturally search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms our preexisting beliefs, while completely discarding evidence that contradicts them.
+=== An internal contradiction he doesn't notice ===
+Courchained argues that the Nicolaitan spirit, the "image of the beast," is precisely the impulse to "settle disputes" by declaring who's right, elevating a teaching authority over the people, and "casting out those who would not agree." Councils, creeds, votes = the beast.
+But the Message does exactly this, and Branham did it in the sharpest possible terms. Branham didn't merely offer a view; he said those who believe the Trinity are "possessed by the devil" and "you're lost," and he called the denominations the mark of the beast. That is the most extreme possible "casting out of those who won't agree." Courchaine praises Branham's tolerance ("find that brother and go to his church") while standing inside a system whose founder consigned Trinitarians to damnation. By Courchaine's own definition of the beast, the Message qualifies. He's applied the test to everyone except the one group it most obviously indicts, which is the very thing he warned against: "question everything except the person telling you to question everything."
+=== The Pragmatic Fallacy: ''It brought millions to Jesus, therefore it's true'' ===
+His climactic proof is testimonial and pragmatic: the Message introduced him to Jesus, it's brought millions to Christ, and that is "beyond dispute" and "THUS SAITH THE LORD."
+Two problems. First, even granting the sincerity, this is a textbook pragmatic fallacy - "it works, therefore it is true."
+Results are never a guarantee of truth. Whether something works and whether it is true are two very different issues.
+Anytime someone says... ''Try Jesus 'cause it works,'' he has committed a fallacy. Plenty of movements produce changed lives and sincere devotion, including ones Courchaine would call false. I am personally aware of:
+* A Muslim man who claims Islam is true because he was miraculously delivered from drug addiction.
+* A Mormon man who knows that the LDS religion is true because he experienced a "burning in his bosom."
+* A Roman Catholic man who was an alcoholic but was delivered instantaneously from his addiction through the power of Jesus.
+Based on the above, Courchaine would have to accept that Islam, Mormonism and Catholicism are all the truth.
+Fruit in the sense of transformed affections is not the same as a true prophetic claim. Branham's claim wasn't "I'll introduce you to Jesus." It was "I am the prophet of Malachi 4:5, the angel of Revelation 10:7, and to reject my message is the mark of the beast." That claim is either true or false on the evidence, and no number of testimonies settles it.
+Second, notice the quiet substitution. The thing that's "beyond dispute" (that the Message meant something to him personally) is smuggled in to vouch for the thing that is very much in dispute (that Branham was who he said he was). Those are two different claims. Conceding the first costs the critic nothing and proves nothing about the second.
 = There really is a true answer =
@@ Line 220: / Line 243: @@
 ----
-=== The Pragmatic Fallacy: ''It brought millions to Jesus, therefore it's true'' ===
-His climactic proof is testimonial and pragmatic: the Message introduced him to Jesus, it's brought millions to Christ, and that is "beyond dispute" and "THUS SAITH THE LORD."
-Two problems. First, even granting the sincerity, this is a textbook pragmatic fallacy - "it works, therefore it is true."
-Results are never a guarantee of truth. Whether something works and whether it is true are two very different issues.
-Anytime someone says... ''Try Jesus 'cause it works,'' he has committed a fallacy. Plenty of movements produce changed lives and sincere devotion, including ones Courchaine would call false. I am personally aware of:
-* A Muslim man who claims Islam is true because he was miraculously delivered from drug addiction.
-* A Mormon man who knows that the LDS religion is true because he experienced a "burning in his bosom."
-* A Roman Catholic man who was an alcoholic but was delivered instantaneously from his addiction through the power of Jesus.
-Based on the above, Courchaine would have to accept that Islam, Mormonism and Catholicism are all the truth.
-Fruit in the sense of transformed affections is not the same as a true prophetic claim. Branham's claim wasn't "I'll introduce you to Jesus." It was "I am the prophet of Malachi 4:5, the angel of Revelation 10:7, and to reject my message is the mark of the beast." That claim is either true or false on the evidence, and no number of testimonies settles it.
-Second, notice the quiet substitution. The thing that's "beyond dispute" (that the Message meant something to him personally) is smuggled in to vouch for the thing that is very much in dispute (that Branham was who he said he was). Those are two different claims. Conceding the first costs the critic nothing and proves nothing about the second.
-=== The Malachi / Revelation 10:7 word-chain ===
-Courchaine repeats the familiar Message move: ''Malachi'' = "my messenger," ''mal'ak'' = "messenger" = "angel," Revelation 10:7 speaks of the seventh "angel," therefore the threads tie together into a single end-time Gentile prophet.
-We dismantled the substance of this argument in ''Under the Halo.'' It's an equivocation (a term shifting meaning mid-argument). "Angel/messenger" is made to carry Branham across from Malachi to Revelation 10 by treating a translation overlap as if it were an identity of referents. But we show in ''Under The Halo'', the Greek of Revelation 10:7 ties the seventh angel to the seventh ''trumpet'' (Rev. 11:15), and Branham's own claim that the text says "the message angel, not the trumpet angel" is simply not what the Greek says, a point confirmed by the ESV, HCSB, and NLT renderings of the passage. Courchaine inherits the conclusion without re-examining the exegesis. He's building the roof on a foundation we've already shown to be unsound.
-Courchaine asserts Malachi 4 "happened" and that Branham fulfilled it, but his ''only'' stated evidence is, again, personal, "the message of Brother Branham definitively brought my heart back to him." That's the pragmatic fallacy doing the exegetical work that the text can't.
-=== An internal contradiction he doesn't notice ===
-This one is worth pointing out because it's his own words turning on him. He argues that the Nicolaitan spirit, the "image of the beast," is precisely the impulse to "settle disputes" by declaring who's right, elevating a teaching authority over the people, and "casting out those who would not agree." Councils, creeds, votes: beast.
-But the Message does exactly this, and Branham did it in the sharpest possible terms. Branham didn't merely offer a view; he said those who believe the Trinity are "possessed by the devil" and "you're lost," and he called the denominations the mark of the beast. That is the most extreme possible "casting out of those who won't agree." Courchaine praises Branham's tolerance ("find that brother and go to his church") while standing inside a system whose founder consigned Trinitarians to damnation. By Courchaine's own definition of the beast, the Message qualifies. He's applied the test to everyone except the one group it most obviously indicts, which is the very thing he warned against: "question everything except the person telling you to question everything."
 =God and logic=