RELIGION....(part 2)

[Cardinal Bunal]

---

Tetelestai

[bcasabee]

tag asa pud aning mga post oi....dili naman sad ta ganahan mo basa.....pwede summarize nalang?

[dacs]

tag asa pud aning mga post oi....dili naman sad ta ganahan mo basa.....pwede summarize nalang?

Sori. Pugsa lang ug gana kay mas maayo pagka-presentar ang mga argumento. Agwants lang.

:mrgreen:

[pokoman]

'Cruelty imbedded in Church history'

NOT ONLY exceptionally brilliant for his academic achievements as a student and for his linguistic ability to speak fluently eight major languages of the world, the late John Paul II Pope of Roman Catholic Church, was exceptionally courageous when he asked forgiveness for his church's centuries of mistakes. Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St. Peter's Square on March 12, 2000, he acknowledged the past misdeeds committed in the name of Catholicism.
Â* Â*One of these errors of Roman Catholic Church that was established as a result of the apostasy of first century Church of Christ is the creation of the Inquisition through which men, women, and children who refused to accept the Catholic Church doctrines were tortured to death (How the Great Religions Began,p.214). Pope John Paul II knows that his church is behind this cruel practice. Rev. Francis S. Betten and Rev. Alfred Kaupmann explicitly stated such church involvement in The Modern World:
Â* "... the Church created a special tribunal, the Papal or Universal Inquisition. The essential features of its method were fixed by a set of laws passed jointly by Pope Lucius III and Emperor Barbarossa in 1184. The minor details had been added by 1230. Such spiritual courts of justice were established in localities most infected by erroneous teachings. ... The state, too, considered heresy as a crime, because it undermined the foundations of public welfare. The penalty fixed by the secular laws for heresy was death by fire.This was never inflicted by the ecclesiastical judge. "(p.344)
Â* Knowledgeable about the persecutions and sufferings of the first century Christians and the history of his church, Pope John Paul II cannot separate the Roman Catholic Church from the responsibilities it should take in matters concerning the Inquisition. It is his church that created such as a special tribunal.

Â* As to how cruel the men behind the Inquisition and the responsibility they should answer for, John A. O'Brien straightforwardly wrote:

Â* "The first law of history' declared Pope Leo XIII, as we mentioned previously, is to assert nothing false and to have no fear of telling the truth'. In conformity with that wise principle, we frankly acknowledge the responsibility of the popes in the use of torture and in the burning of thousands of heretics at the stake. Their sanctioning of such cruel and brutal measures is unquestionably one of the blackest stains on the record of the Holy Office and will remain to the end of time a cause of obloquy and shame upon the papacy. Even when it is frankly conceded as it must be, that intensions were good and their solicitude was for the welfare of the victim's soul,let it still be affirmed that the cruel and inhuman methods are beyond all defense." (The Truth About the Inquisition, p.49)

Â* O'Brien further wrote more revealing statements thus:
Â* Â* "CHURCH RESPONSIBILITY
Â* Â* "The Catholic Church cannot escape escape responsibility for the use of torture nor for the burning of victims at the stake. The Catholic Church in the person of her pontiffs was responsible for the use of torture; this cruel practice was introduced by Innocent IV in 1252 ... The pontiffs tries to defend the use of torture by classifying heretics with thieves and murderers, a mere comparison is his only argument. This law of Innocent IV was renewed and confirmed by Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Clement IV on November 3, 1265.
Â* “Neither can the Catholic Church escape responsibility for sending heretics to be burnt to death at the stake. The mere subterfuge of having the victim turned over to the secular arm cannot hide the fact that the popes repeatedly insisted under pain of excommunication and interdict upon rulers enforcing the death penalty against heretics.â€� (Ibid. p.47)

Â* More than forced conversion, the extremely cruel Inquisition and the other sins he mentioned during that Sunday’s special Mass, there is something the late Pope John Paul II should have asked for forgiveness – the apostasy of the first – century Church that was established by Christ and propagated by the apostles.
Â* All the events regarding the the emergence of the Catholic Church in the second century and the torture killing of thousands of people are but a fulfillment of one of the prophecies concerning the apostasy of the Church established by Christ in the first – century. Paul the apostle revealed this prophecy in one of his epistles, stating:

Â* “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the the flock.â€� (Acts 20:29)
Â*
Should John Paul II have the courage needed to admit and apologize for such gravest mistake of the Catholic Church, this would be one of his greatest achievements and make him the most exceptional pope.

[dacs]

'Cruelty imbedded in Church history'

NOT ONLY exceptionally brilliant for his academic achievements as a student and for his linguistic ability to speak fluently eight major languages of the world, the late John Paul II Pope of Roman Catholic Church, was exceptionally courageous when he asked forgiveness for his church's centuries of mistakes. Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St. Peter's Square on March 12, 2000, he acknowledged the past misdeeds committed in the name of Catholicism.
Â* Â*One of these errors of Roman Catholic Church that was established as a result of the apostasy of first century Church of Christ is the creation of the Inquisition through which men, women, and children who refused to accept the Catholic Church doctrines were tortured to death (How the Great Religions Began,p.214).

What?Â* Did you ever read real history aside from the ones taught to you by your pastor or your sect?Â* A quick look at any encyclopedia worth its penny could open your eyes to the reality that the institution known as the Inquisition happened, at the earliest, around the middle of the 13th century.Â* Admittedly, there had been positive suppression of heresy by ecclesiastical and civil authority in Christian society even while the apostles are still alive. Nevertheless, the Inquisition is a distinct ecclesiastical tribunal and is of much later origin.Â* Click here to read an article on the Inquisition as provided by the online Catholic Encyclopedia.

Pope John Paul II knows that his church is behind this cruel practice. Rev. Francis S. Betten and Rev. Alfred Kaupmann explicitly stated such church involvement in The Modern World:
Â* "... the Church created a special tribunal, the Papal or Universal Inquisition. The essential features of its method were fixed by a set of laws passed jointly by Pope Lucius III and Emperor Barbarossa in 1184. The minor details had been added by 1230.

How about that? Â*

I taught you said that the Inquisition was created during the first century (from your post : 'One of these errors of Roman Catholic Church that was established as a result of the apostasy of first century Church of Christ is the creation of the Inquisition'). Â*Is it first century or 1184? Â*I don't supposed that the year 1184 is first century to you. Â*Please take care to read and understand. Â*It is so embarassing.

Such spiritual courts of justice were established in localities most infected by erroneous teachings. ...

Thank you, bro. Â*Indeed, the Inquisition was established to combat or suppress the spread of erroneous teachings. Â*If you have been reading the Bible, then you know that - even during the time of the apostles - heretical teachings abound. Â*It is the duty of the Church to keep the purity of the deposits of faith.

The state, too, considered heresy as a crime, because it undermined the foundations of public welfare. The penalty fixed by the secular laws for heresy was death by fire.This was never inflicted by the ecclesiastical judge. "(p.344)

Again, thank you, bro. Â*As what you have quoted, ecclesiastical judges (those sent by the Church to preside over the ecclesiatical Inquisition) rarely give the punishment of death by fire. Â*Those kind of punishment were mostly given out by state judges.

Knowledgeable about the persecutions and sufferings of the first century Christians and the history of his church, Pope John Paul II cannot separate the Roman Catholic Church from the responsibilities it should take in matters concerning the Inquisition. It is his church that created such as a special tribunal.

The principle that allowed the Philippine government to pass the Clean Air Act is the same principle that moved the Church to prevent the contamination of the doctrines of Christ. The Church has a duty to safeguard the faith that was handed down by the apostles and the saints. These doctrines - which give life to our souls - must be kept from being adulterated and contaminated by heretical teachings. As you can ascertain from your very own quotation, the spiritual courts of the Inquisition are mostly formed in localities most infected by erroneous teachings.

As to how cruel the men behind the Inquisition and the responsibility they should answer for, John A. O'Brien straightforwardly wrote:

Â* "The first law of history' declared Pope Leo XIII, as we mentioned previously, is to assert nothing false and to have no fear of telling the truth'. In conformity with that wise principle, we frankly acknowledge the responsibility of the popes in the use of torture and in the burning of thousands of heretics at the stake. Their sanctioning of such cruel and brutal measures is unquestionably one of the blackest stains on the record of the Holy Office and will remain to the end of time a cause of obloquy and shame upon the papacy.

You have just quoted above that the death by fire was never inflicted by the ecclesiastical judge. Â*You have conflicting claims. Â*Have you ever read your material? Â*Prove that the torture and the burning were sanctioned by the popes. Â*It is so easy to lay claims - but we must ask for proof. Â*Otherwise, all these are just gossips and that is an un-Christian act.

Even when it is frankly conceded as it must be, that intensions were good and their solicitude was for the welfare of the victim's soul,let it still be affirmed that the cruel and inhuman methods are beyond all defense." (The Truth About the Inquisition, p.49)

You are reading a material set on a different time with different rules and norms. Â*Yet, you are judging it in light of our present rules and norms. Â*There may come a time that a non-invasive medical surgery will be the norm. Â*Our present surgical procedures may be called positively barbaric in the future.

Is it for us who live this times?

Â* O'Brien further wrote more revealing statements thus:
Â* Â* "CHURCH RESPONSIBILITY
Â* Â* "The Catholic Church cannot escape escape responsibility for the use of torture nor for the burning of victims at the stake. The Catholic Church in the person of her pontiffs was responsible for the use of torture; this cruel practice was introduced by Innocent IV in 1252 ...

Among other things, you are consistent. Â*You consistently present material that you consider to be factual, but - unfortunately - are found to be mythical. Â*Pope Innocent IV prohibited anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the episcopal consent. Â*He never started the cruel practice. Â*Check again your history, bro.

The pontiffs tries to defend the use of torture by classifying heretics with thieves and murderers, a mere comparison is his only argument. This law of Innocent IV was renewed and confirmed by Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Clement IV on November 3, 1265.

This is a lie and you have made yourself an accessory to it. Â*You have propagated a lie. Â*'Mere comparison' is not his only argument. Â*Torture was indeed first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. Curiously enough torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun.The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientiousness and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. (information in darkblue is taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm)

Â* “Neither can the Catholic Church escape responsibility for sending heretics to be burnt to death at the stake. The mere subterfuge of having the victim turned over to the secular arm cannot hide the fact that the popes repeatedly insisted under pain of excommunication and interdict upon rulers enforcing the death penalty against heretics.â€� (Ibid. p.47)

This again is a lie. Â*Prove that popes have repeatedly insisted under pain of excommunication and interdict that death penalty is to be enforced against heretics. Â*Please stop calling yourself a Christian until you clean up your act.

More than forced conversion, the extremely cruel Inquisition and the other sins he mentioned during that Sunday’s special Mass, there is something the late Pope John Paul II should have asked for forgiveness – the apostasy of the first – century Church that was established by Christ and propagated by the apostles.

You truly are something. Â*Didn't you know that the Inquisition (especially the Spanish Inquisition) was done to root out 'fake conversions'?

Â* All the events regarding the the emergence of the Catholic Church in the second century and the torture killing of thousands of people are but a fulfillment of one of the prophecies concerning the apostasy of the Church established by Christ in the first – century. Paul the apostle revealed this prophecy in one of his epistles, stating:

Â* “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the the flock.â€� (Acts 20:29)
Â*
Should John Paul II have the courage needed to admit and apologize for such gravest mistake of the Catholic Church, this would be one of his greatest achievements and make him the most exceptional pope.

[dacs]

Here is an article on the Inquisition written by the Catholic Answers:

The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don’t Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.

Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

What’s the Point?

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.

Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.

The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–1. Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

Two other articles you may find enlightening (at least I hope so):

Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is The Golden Age
The Spanish Inquisition : Fact Versus Fiction

[mannyamador]

But while Paul writes that Scripture is useful for doctrine, he does not say that Scripture is the necessary and sufficient font of all doctrine. Such is simply not in the text at hand.

Touche'!!!

Moreover, it should not escape our notice that Paul is referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet written, compiled and canonized. Does this mean, by the logic of internal sufficiency, that we should REJECT the New Testament as inspired and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction?

Good point!

[Cardinal Bunal]

Mosimos, Manny, Dacs

you are a masters of Contrapositives.

You also adhere to Argumentum Ad Baculum and Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. And that is your logic.

Dacs, Sir

eyebol nya ta sa TC aha man ka second floor sa ECE sa? ;-b hehehe.... bitaw sige ko'g duaw sa TC.

[mannyamador]

Mosimos, Manny, Dacs
you are a masters of Contrapositives.
You also adhere to Argumentum Ad Baculum and Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. And that is your logic.

No. We can think rationally. You can't. In fact, you have gone to great lengths to avoid providing proof for your absurd claims. Stop sour-graping just because we have caught you lying outright. And you think yourself a Christian? What HYPOCRISY!

[dacs]

Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

When can I ever have a logical foe to argue with?Â*

Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority): while sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

- the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
- experts in the field disagree on this issue.
- the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious.

Oh, the beauty of truth being told!

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

... and hearsay is a very convenient weapon of choice against the un-informed.Â* Unfortunately, it does not work for someone who is informed.

Men, women, istoryans ... lend me your ears (and your eyes)!Â* Walang kai-kaibigan!Â* Walang kapit-kapitbahay!Â* Ang ato lang nga maluwas ta!Â* Sakto ba ang mga pasangil nga gihandos niining tawhana?