Your asking ME a question is not YOU documenting YOUR case.
Oh, I get it - you're less interested in a substantial case made than you are in rapidity of reply. You could stand to cultivate a bit of patience in your life.
Now, my question?
OK. Then that's my answer for those who ask for an infallible Canon of Scr from Sola Scriptura.
sw: That question has not been asked of you in this particular discussion.
???? That's the very question I explicitly identified as the challenge I'm responding to when I make these "you're in just as 'bad' shape as we are" arguments! Someone's not paying attention...
That's #3 on my Top Ten List. The "you're in no better shape" argument does not defend YOUR position, it is an invalid red herring argument.
Yup, you're not paying attention.
The astute reader, who actually attempts to use his memory and fairly represent the other side, will recall that I entered this combox for the explicit and express purpose of disputing #3. And now Mr Windsor crows: "Heh heh! You violated #3!!!!" Um, yes, I know that. I think #3 is stupid.
What's really funny is that Windsor linked to the very same post in whose combox we're having this discussion! Sir, may I suggest with the most kindness I possibly can - you are embarrassing yourself. Pay attention, or don't comment.
1) Is it complete? (2)Not missing one single item?
sw: That's TWO questions.
Um, yes. It sure is.
1) It doesn't claim to be, nor did I claim it was.
So it's not a fallible list of infallible doctrines of the RCC.
Even though before, I'd said:
Rhology: (The RCC can't provide) failing that, a fallible list of RCC's infallible teachings
and then you answered:
SW: There are PLENTY of fallible lists! Dr. Ott's book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma being one of the most notable!
sw: That's really #3, for those who can count.
Yes, that's right too! 2+1=3! Gold star!
How do I know? Um, I just answered that, the TITLE tells us what it IS.
Oh, OK. Well, my Bible says "The Holy Bible" on the title. What? You want an infallible canon? Hey, get off my back! I just answered that, the TITLE tells us what it IS.
The Canon which was defined is that of "The Old Latin Vulgate" - the canon used by St. Jerome. In the DEFINITION there is no silence.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong about that.
Next time, pay attention. You'll get better work done.
Posts
9 comments:
First to use the word "vuvuzela" on the Beggars All blog!!!!
First to identify a human "vuvuzela", too!
What? HUH? I can't hear you!
Geeesh, you must be distracted yourself, because it is not a vuvuzela at all.
It's a lepatata < LEPATATA!
You should seriously change the sound of the tone of your tenor in here!
I can't change the tone of my tenor...
mine is a baritone!
My response is where this began...
Starting here.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Scott,
starting there I came to an abrupt stop!
You wrote, there, this: "...the often greater silent majority...".
Just how many languages do you know?
Can you quantify the "silent majority" you write of here? Of the 6 plus billion human beings on the planet right now, so you intend for me to believe you represent how many of these? Would 4.6 billion of us be a part of your 'silent' majority?
And, as for being in control, have you ever considered God?
When is He ever "not" in control of His creation and creatures, then, now or ever?
Don't you feel a bit silly by assertions like these:
"2. Always put the Catholic on the defense, don't let him/her be the one asking questions. (The person in control of the debate is the one asking the questions, never let the Catholic have control! Keep asking questions! Every time a question is answered, ask another one - but keep point #1 in mind)".
Ok, keeping that in mind I ask you to quantify the 'silent' majority and I will try to restrain myself from asking more questions?
Now you are in control by keeping me waiting for your replies! Can't guarantee I won't have more questions after you answer the questions I now have asked?
Apparently Mr Windsor's blog doesn't let you link directly to comments. I mean, you can, but clicking on the link just takes you to the main post. I don't know why, but it sure is annoying.
My response begins over there at:
Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:47:00 AM
Natallmc,
The "silent majority" simply refers to the hundreds, or perhaps thousands of people who READ what is posted in a blog or a public email list but rarely, if ever, post something themselves. That is true of every public site.
Alan,
I'm not sure why you're having trouble linking to a specific comment, here's the one you tried to link to:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/06/top-ten-tactics-of-anti-catholics.html#c2436843349645529186
In Christ,
Scott<<<
And here I thought "silent majority" was from Nixon.
Post a Comment