The acceptance of the Bible and the belief system. Do you accept this?
The acceptance of the Bible and the belief system. Do you accept this?
The gods love and the gods hate, and I do not believe that anything worthy of the title would be so foolish as to do either blindly.
Eh, replied to this post before I realized there were 14 pages of disucssion already. I wouldn't have replied had iI realized.
Last edited by buck; 07-16-10 at 10:58 PM.
I am much more interested in the Archangel Gabriel because of his role in the foundation of Islam. If he did indeed commune with Mohammed, did he do so at the behest of God or has he too rebelled against God?
Jewish belief rejects the idea of an angel rebelling and Christian belief of an opposing kingdom is polytheistic or believing in more than one god. Christianity believes that Satan is a fallen angel, yup, and has a kingdom of sorts. But never equal. His kingdom if you will, is here on earth. He tempts people and Christian literature, including the Bible never states that Satan can ever harm or present a challenge to God himself. He tempts, but people always have the free-will to resist that temptation. That is totally consistent with Jewish belief.
Just because you think it's incorrect doesn't make it incorrect.
Please refute the Catechism and the words of John Paul if you have evidence which does so, but stop pretending you are capable of determining if something is incorrect. you are not.
You've never presented a case for equivocation. You've simply stated that it was present, which has always been incorrect.I'd suggest that it is difficult not to make a "straw man" out of your arguments when they are ever shifting from the repeated fallacy of equivocation. If I am making a straw man it is only out of an attempt to inject some coherence into your position, but perhaps that was too presumptuous of me. I apologize.
This is because your case for equivocation is based on your strawman which relied on your equivocation. This equivocation was teh attemtp by you to paint my comment of by "fully and completely equal" as meaning the same as "spiritual equality".
You weren't injecting coherency into anything. Your strawman is what led you to make the false assumption that coherency is missing. this was because you did not fully and completely read the sentences which you attempted to posit a rebuttal to.
If you are actually interested in having a fruitful discussion, you'll reread those sentences and take care to note of every word in the second one. For now, just take note of the "could" and "later" in the sentence. more on those later.In the interest of having a more fruitful discussion, perhaps your could amend and clarify your fallacious argument. Is this your argument:
But man, by way of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, attributed it to their God by making it an "Infallible" decree that they've not been granted the authority to do so.
It's exactly as I said earlier. They left the wording open so that they could pretend that God allowed them to have that authority later if they absolutely had to. Doesn't change the fact that it is attributed to God.
A tthis point, though, the important portion to take a clsoer look at is "It's exactly as I said earlier".
This sentence would indicate that further clarity can be achieved on this matter in one of my previous posts (which I've been assuming you've actually been reading and understood, but that might have been an ignorant assumption on my part).
Anyways, specifically look at post #101 where I said:
"What it doesn't warrant is the assumption that women will never become priests. The wording Pope John Paul II used was specifically worded to allow for a future papal decree where the church is granted the authority."
Now lets compare this to the text you just quoted:
"They left the wording open so that they could pretend that God allowed them to have that authority later if they absolutely had to."
As you should be able to clearly see, these sentences both discuss a potential future that was left open by the wording of said decree.
Now, my position in those two statements happens to be perfectly consistent with the quotes from posts 117 and 120.
And I presented that statement a full 16 posts prior to when you tried to use it to "rebut" me.
Going back to the quote that refers to the present:
"But man, by way of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, attributed it to their God by making it an "Infallible" decree that they've not been granted the authority to do so."
This can be seen by the Quote form JPII in post 97:
"...in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
I've bolded the portions that agree with each other.
My claim is that this decree, which is invoking papal infallibility according to the catechism:
The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals
He was confirming to his brethren a definitive act of doctrine pertaining to the Faith, which, according to the Catechism, means he was enjoying infallibility in virtue of his office.
In the second quote I also clearly mention both the Catholic Church and the Pontiff with regard to the infallibility. Both invoked their infallibility, albeit at different times, regarding this issue.
What all of the above indicates is that you have not, at any time, understood my arguments.
As such, you are not equipped with the tools necessary to present a rebuttal for them.
If you want clarification, seek that out prior to attempting to rebut me, because all you have done thus far is help prove my case for me and then, for some incomprehensible reason, declare victory after doing so.
Statements such as the following:
Only look foolish when one looks at those two statements to which you refer. It shows that you thought I was claiming that they currently have the authority when I made the second comment that you quoted.So are you arguing that the Church does claim the authority or does not claim the authority?
But, as I asked you to take not of earlier, I definitely used the terms "could" and "later" in that comment to indicate the future potentiality where they "could" have that authority "later" if the need arose.
See how easily those two words -"could" and "later"- fit into that sentence clarifying my earlier comment?
Now if we remove (or ignore) those two words, we have a sentence that means what you claimed it meant:
"they have that authority if the need arose"
But those words were present, so the sentence didn't mean what you've claimed it meant.
"Could" and "later" were clearly important parts of that sentence which changed its meaning. I know I put them in there since you quoted them in your own post, so I must assume that somehow you didn't see them or chose to ignore them.
And I strongly I encourage you to go all the way back to the beginning of this exchange and reread everything, but this time, take your flawed perceptions of what I'm saying, wrap them up into a little ball, and throw them away.I encourage you to pick one, and perhaps attempt to debate honestly for a change.
If, as you reread the posts, you become befuddled at any point by anything I've said, please seek clarification before trying to rebut the comment. That way, I'll have a chance to clarify anything I've said that is confusing and you can avoid creating any embarrassing self-defeating arguments.
Then, and only then, can we move on to a more fruitful and fulfilling debate. As it stands, I am not able to have a debate with someone who clearly hasn't understood what I've been saying, and you cannot have a debate with someone who is incomprehensible to you.
Regardless of where the fault lies, continuing down this path cannot yield fruitful debate. Since you have not said that I have mis-portrayed your arguments, I'm assuming that means I have not done so.
If, during your readings, you find a situation where I have, please point it out to me so that I may seek clarification.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.