Appeal to emotions

The response from your former pastor, "so you just want 'fire insurance' is that it!!," is an example of an "appeal to emotions" logical fallacy. Let's break this down:

### Appeal to Emotion:

#### Definition:
An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy in which an argument is made by eliciting an emotional response rather than presenting a rational case. It bypasses logical analysis and often aims to manipulate the listener’s feelings to win an argument.

#### Analysis:
In this instance, your pastor's response is designed to provoke an emotional reaction rather than address the theological points you raised about salvation being a free gift through Jesus’s sacrifice. By using the term "fire insurance," he is appealing to feelings of guilt or shame, implying that your understanding of salvation is selfish or superficial. This distracts from the rational discussion of doctrine and shifts the focus to a perceived moral failing.

### Other Logical Issues:

#### Straw Man:
Your pastor’s response also seems to constitute a "straw man" fallacy. He oversimplifies and misrepresents your position:
- **Your Argument:** Salvation is a free gift through Jesus's sacrifice, and nothing we can do will earn it.
- **Pastor's Distorted Version:** You only care about avoiding hell ("fire insurance").

By doing this, he attacks a weaker version of your argument rather than engaging with its actual substance.

### Important Points in Your Argument:

1. **Salvation as a Free Gift:** Theologically, many Christian doctrines emphasize that salvation is a gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus, not based on works (Ephesians 2:8-9).
2. **Unconditional Salvation:** The idea that salvation cannot be earned aligns with many Christian teachings on grace.
3. **Misinterpretation:** The term "fire insurance" reduces the rich theological concept of salvation to a mere transactional avoidance of punishment, which does not fully capture the depth or intent of your argument.

### Better Response:
A more constructive response from your pastor could focus on clarifying misunderstandings or discussing the theological implications of faith and works in a nuanced manner. For example, he could have said, "I understand that you believe salvation is a free gift, but let's discuss how faith is reflected through our actions and relationship with God."

In summary, the pastor's reply is flawed due to its appeal to emotion and the misrepresentation of your argument. Engaging in a thoughtful and reasoned discussion would be a more effective approach to addressing the theological points you presented.

Do not argue with the pastor. You will lose. You are letting him set the rules of engagement. 

Instead, ask the pastor upon what he bases his statements, and press him until you get to most basic premise upon which he bases each of the conclusions he makes.

First, the burden of proof is upon the person who presents a proposition as true, and not upon anyone else to disprove the proposition. A simple internet search for “burden of proof” will show the universality of this rule and why. For every statement he makes, work it back to the original fact that allowed him logically to conclude what he says in his rants. 

Be aware of a common technique pastors use. That is for you to prove what he says isn’t correct. That is not your job, which leads to the next point.

Secondly, when you ask a person to prove [fill in the blank] does not exist, you are asking for proof of a negative. That is not possible. Let me explain why. 

Proving a negative means proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. It is the 

Proof, logic, reason, thinking, and knowledge pertain to and deal with only that which exists. You cannot apply them to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent does not exist. It is nothing in the true sense of nothing. Nothing is nothing. 

You can refute a positive statement based on facts erroneously interpreted by exposing errors in the interpretation. Such refutation is the DISproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative. In this context, as Carl Sagan said, the absence of proof is proof of nothing. 

The burden of proof is upon the person who advances a proposition, any proposition. For example, “X exists” is the proposition. When both parties understand and agree on what the proponent means by X, which is to say, a definition, then the discussion can advance to evidence for the existence of X. 

Absent a definition, there can be no intelligible discussion, and the absence of proof is proof of nothing.