Posted on 05/17/2007 10:08:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
Risky-Riskerdo, click on my profile page for guidelines concerning the Religion Forum.
Thanks. I have read them, and desire that no discussions be brought to a personal level. I also desire that the Roman Catholic antagonists would refrain from starting down that path, such as in the following post;
To: Risky-Riskerdo
** that’s how the marxists work.**
Are you calling Catholics “marxists”?
That is absolutely slanderous in my book. Where are you getting such statements? From some propaganda somewhere? Inquiring minds want to know.
394 posted on 05/20/2007 9:45:51 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
Had the poster read carefully, the poster would have seen clearly the use of similie, and would not have reached a fallacious conclusion and continued to make things personal.
>> Then advise Roman Catholics not to cite Harnack, or others Roman Catholics cite, such as Schaff when they think, they are in their favor. <<
Googlig their names on FreeRepublic as a domain, No Catholic Freeper ever cited Harnack, except “even Harnack...” in a condemnation of the DaVinci codes. Schaff picked up too many hits, because others have his name, and because of his encyclopedia, but briefly perusing several hits, I’d say it seems highly unlikely any Catholic ever cited him, either. He mainly shows up on GPRL caucus threads.
>> Another genetic fallacy of false association of facts and false premise. One can have the historical fact correct while reaching a wrong conclusion of what that fact means. <<
You quote me out of context in a way which distorts what I wrote. I said that IF you are going to MERELY appeal to authority; I also said that if you were going to cite someone as a source for an idea, WITHOUT reaching his conclusions, you should present his idea for discussion, rather than simply appealing to his authority.
To borrow your example, the apostles did NOT simply cite Jesus as an authority, saying, “Jesus taught us...”; they went back to the Old Testament scriptures to support what Jesus taught.
You did no such thing. You simply threw out a couple names of people who agreed with you.
Are you calling Catholics “marxists”?
Is that what I said? A correct reading which pays attention to context and literary devices used does not reach that false conclusion.
That is absolutely slanderous in my book.
I guess it would be if that is what I actually said, but that is not what I said.
Answered already.
Was the context, Roman Catholics on FreeRepublic citing Harnack?
If it was, please produce the exact citation where I restricted it to Roman Catholics on FreeRepublic with the precise quote using those words. Thanks.
>> Precisely what “authority” did I appeal to. Cite the exact post, verbatim. <<
“As Harnack and many other historians have noted,...”
>> Roman Catholic brand most anyone who opposes Rome as “crackpots”, and yes, that is demonization. <<
I didn’t label Harnack a crackpot because he was simply non-Catholic. I labeled him a crackpot because he called himself a Christian while launching a direct attack on all that is holy and sacred to Christianity... not just Catholism, but all of Christianity.
You did no such thing. You simply threw out a couple names of people who agreed with you.
The Religion Moderator has instructed us, you and me, to not make things personal. Since you disregard that instruction there is no reason for me to continue this discussion since you insist on taking it down that path.
Have a nice day.
Some definitions:
Heretic: person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Church
Apostate: the formal renunciation of one’s religion
All who went along with the Reformation were both heretic and apostate. I suppose the quality of crackpot might be included as well, but that would have to depend on the individual.
Heretic: person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Church
Which applies to the Roman Catholic religion.
Apostate: the formal renunciation of one’s religion
We Protestants did not do that. We maintain the religion established by Christ. It was Rome that departed from the faith.
All who went along with the Reformation were both heretic and apostate.
Wrong. See the above.
As I explained in #345, you answered a different question from the one I asked. You answered the question: "Whose interpretation of Scripture is *not* authoritative?" I already knew your answer to that question. That is why I didn't ask you that question. I asked you this question: Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative? And you have not yet answered this question.
-A8
Are we calling our dog a cat now?
All who hold beliefs in opposition to or different from the Church are by definition heretic. Since you have a compilation of beliefs that conflict with the Church of Christ, you are by definition a heretic.
You may or may not be heretic to your own particular religion; I have no idea. But you are heretic to the Church that Jesus Christ established here on earth. Saying that it isn’t doesn’t make it so. We have the Apostolic Succession; you don’t. If you would tell me the name of your religion, I might be able to tell you who established it and when.
You may call yourself a Christian and be convinced that you are following the exclusive Church of Christ, but by the Bible and other Christian writings, we have proven otherwise. And will probably continue to do so.
You can call the Reformation an attempt to reform the Church, or the Restoration an attempt to restore the Church, but in the end, a man made religion is man made - normally the founders of the thousands of Protestant denominations did so out of ego. Luther did; Zwingli and Smith did; Calvin certainly did; Campbells (pere et fils) did; Mary Baker Eddy did; and so on and so on.
Calling your dog a cat doesn’t make it so.
Have a nice day.
Why are you afraid to answer the question?
-A8
Attributing motives to another Freeper is "making it personal."
Purely subjective response.
All who hold beliefs in opposition to or different from the Church are by definition heretic.
We Protestants do not hold beliefs in opposition to or different from the Church. The Roman Catholic religion does. Rome
Since you have a compilation of beliefs that conflict with the Church of Christ, you are by definition a heretic.
As per the Religion Moderator's instruction, I will not engage the persistent attempt to make things personal.
The beliefs I and other Protestants hold are not in conflict with the Church of Christ, they are in conflict with the Roman Catholic religion, which is not the representative of the Church of Christ.
As I said, I will not engage the continued attempts to make this discussion one of a personal nature.
Have a nice day.
Why do you avoid answering the question? [RM: No attribution of motives.]
It is a simple question, and it is easy enough to answer: "Nobody's", or "I don't know", or "mine" or "that of the leaders of my denomination".
-A8
Why do you avoid answering the question? [RM: No attribution of motives.]
As I have stated, I am not going to engage these persistent efforts to take the discussion down the path of making it personal.
Have a nice day.
I don't see how asking you "Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?" is "making it personal"?
-A8
What could be more personal than Christianity and why would you be willing to try to tell Catholics that their church is wrong but you aren’t willing to answer what you believe about the Bible? I don’t understand your hesitation. You seem so sure of what we should believe or disbelieve.
[[[ I don't see how asking you "Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?" is "making it personal"? Why do you avoid answering the question? ]]]
Why do you avoid answering the question?
That is making it personal.
Please do not do so any longer.
Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.