Contradictions of the modern popes
(08-16-2012, 03:37 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You know thats not what I mean, you were after all involved in the discussion, so you are simply being disingenous, but then I've come to expect that from you.

Honestly, I do not "know that's not what you meant."  You made a grammatical claim, you were asked about it politely, you insulted others viciously (as in, the opposite of virtue), and refused to even apologize for the insults for no apparent reason other than your own pride.  That is what I saw; that is what is there to see for all.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:49 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:45 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:20 PM)Parmandur Wrote: In order for a virtue to shine, it is a prerequisite that it is present.

How do you know whether he has any or not? How can any of us know? Humility and charity presume that he does without him having to prove it on a message board. We may not see it, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have it. Are we any better than he to assume that he has none because we don't see it here? In person, he may be a completely different person; we don't know. In any case, I admit that his presentation of himself here on this forum gives a very bad impression, but that doesn't mean he lacks any whatsoever. Let us pray that he soon begins to let what he presumably has shine out through his forum persona. Let us all practice what we preach.

I don't assume he does or doesn't have these virtues; but I have no evidence that suggests that they exist.  All I'm saying.


And you don't need any to assume that he has them. It is basic benefit of doubt. All I'm saying.  :)

I don't so it to insult or castigate him.  I am genuinely concerned for TrentCath that he starts this thread claiming to want to discuss theology, but he can't honestly or politely interact over grammar.  That is not healthy.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:37 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You know thats not what I mean, you were after all involved in the discussion, so you are simply being disingenous, but then I've come to expect that from you.

Honestly, I do not "know that's not what you meant."  You made a grammatical claim, you were asked about it politely, you insulted others viciously (as in, the opposite of virtue), and refused to even apologize for the insults for no apparent reason other than your own pride.  That is what I saw; that is what is there to see for all.

If you say so, you keep spinning that myth as long as you want.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:36 PM)TrentCath Wrote: What was that about the blind leading the blind? A Virtue lesson from INP... I can take, as much as we disagree he at least was always polite and virtuous about it, you on the other hand can claim no such record, so as I said before take the log out of your own eye.

And even if all I said was true so what? Can you not deal with the evidence for the benefit of others? Its no problem accussing others of being wrong, the sspx being wrong etc... even when they are stubborn etc.. and yet when it comes to proving your own claims which you spend most of your time on FE re-iterating you cannot even prove them  :eyeroll:

SaintSebastian adequately demonstrated what is wrong in your methodology in the first few pages, that applying the same method to the historical Popes invalidates the whole history of the Church.  You speak of argument, but all you have done is copy-pasta a bunch of random quotes.  It has been correctly pointed out that, taken to a syllogistic form, the conclusion of your premises is that the Church has defected, or never was true to begin with anyway.

All you have done is copy-pasta and insult others who try to interact with you.  This is not virtuous.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I don't so it to insult or castigate him.  I am genuinely concerned for TrentCath that he starts this thread claiming to want to discuss theology, but he can't honestly or politely interact over grammar.  That is not healthy.

Of course. I am concerned, too, which is why I said something and decided to get involved in a thread I didn't want much to do with. But helping him doesn't mean saying that he doesn't have any virtue at all. Maybe he doesn't, but we can't really know that from our forum interactions here. Help him by being a good example, not by stooping to his level.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:52 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:37 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You know thats not what I mean, you were after all involved in the discussion, so you are simply being disingenous, but then I've come to expect that from you.

Honestly, I do not "know that's not what you meant."  You made a grammatical claim, you were asked about it politely, you insulted others viciously (as in, the opposite of virtue), and refused to even apologize for the insults for no apparent reason other than your own pride.  That is what I saw; that is what is there to see for all.

If you say so, you keep spinning that myth as long as you want.

What myth?  where have you offered any apology for your uncharitable and proud behavior?
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I don't so it to insult or castigate him.  I am genuinely concerned for TrentCath that he starts this thread claiming to want to discuss theology, but he can't honestly or politely interact over grammar.  That is not healthy.

Of course. I am concerned, too, which is why I said something and decided to get involved in a thread I didn't want much to do with. But helping him doesn't mean saying that he doesn't have any virtue at all. Maybe he doesn't, but we can't really know that from our forum interactions here. Help him by being a good example, not by stooping to his level.

I do not claim he has no virtues at all; but the three you mentioned I have reason to suspect he could stand to develop.  And I just wanted to point out to him that people not interacting with his copy-pasta is not a concession of his victory, but a reflection of his lack of honest discussion.  He "makes a desert, and calls it peace" rhetorically speaking.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:49 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:45 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:20 PM)Parmandur Wrote: In order for a virtue to shine, it is a prerequisite that it is present.

How do you know whether he has any or not? How can any of us know? Humility and charity presume that he does without him having to prove it on a message board. We may not see it, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have it. Are we any better than he to assume that he has none because we don't see it here? In person, he may be a completely different person; we don't know. In any case, I admit that his presentation of himself here on this forum gives a very bad impression, but that doesn't mean he lacks any whatsoever. Let us pray that he soon begins to let what he presumably has shine out through his forum persona. Let us all practice what we preach.

I don't assume he does or doesn't have these virtues; but I have no evidence that suggests that they exist.  All I'm saying.


And you don't need any to assume that he has them. It is basic benefit of doubt. All I'm saying.  :)

I don't so it to insult or castigate him.  I am genuinely concerned for TrentCath that he starts this thread claiming to want to discuss theology, but he can't honestly or politely interact over grammar.  That is not healthy.

Oh please. I pointed out it was bizzare for a pope to reverse the normal order of things for no apparent reason, particularly when popes and canon law itself listed it the other way round. Jaynes response to my posting it was to claim:
a) it was laughable
b) that maybe english wasn't my first language
c) that more likely than not they were no other errors among the popes as the evidence was so weak

Now I don't think you are ignorant of any of these things and yet you still try and misconstrue things so as to make it look as if I just decided to be 'mean' to Jayne for no apparent reason. In actual fact I responded after provocation and mockery, these things are quite apparent so why do you choose not to mention them?

What is not healthy is getting so obsessed over someones claims about grammar rules, which by the way was meant in a loose sense i.e no one would actually speak like that, that you start a poll on it and then try and reduce their entire argument down to that, when in actual fact i said:
a) that previous popes had always dealt with it in reverse order
b)that canon law itself did
c) that I was not only the one who made the claim and that Bp Tissier who cannot be claimed to be theologically ignorant, made the same claim

Again it is hard to believe you are ignorant of these things, it seems more likely you are simply in bad faith attempting to create a caricature of me.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: SaintSebastian adequately demonstrated what is wrong in your methodology in the first few pages, that applying the same method to the historical Popes invalidates the whole history of the Church.  You speak of argument, but all you have done is copy-pasta a bunch of random quotes.  It has been correctly pointed out that, taken to a syllogistic form, the conclusion of your premises is that the Church has defected, or never was true to begin with anyway.

All you have done is copy-pasta and insult others who try to interact with you.  This is not virtuous.

a) this does not show that my methodology is at all wrong, as it does not show that popes cannot in fact contradict each other, all it does is show that in certain cases what looks like contradictions can be reconciled. If anything it strengthens my request for people to reconcile these so called errors
b) this is simply nonsensical, as you know full well that there are good counter arguments for this, you are making this claim in bad faith, which would not be the first time you have done this.
c) this is again nonsensical, what I have done is copy and paste various statements, teachings etc.. of modern popes and compare them with others. Moreover your statement is inaccurate and false, I have insulted one or two people who have interacted with me, who themselves had done likewise.

Again I cannot believe you are ignorant of these things, it seems more likely to me you are in bad faith, again, not for the first nor I suspect, for the last time.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:55 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:52 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:37 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You know thats not what I mean, you were after all involved in the discussion, so you are simply being disingenous, but then I've come to expect that from you.

Honestly, I do not "know that's not what you meant."  You made a grammatical claim, you were asked about it politely, you insulted others viciously (as in, the opposite of virtue), and refused to even apologize for the insults for no apparent reason other than your own pride.  That is what I saw; that is what is there to see for all.

If you say so, you keep spinning that myth as long as you want.

What myth?  where have you offered any apology for your uncharitable and proud behavior?

You are begging the question. I could ask you the same question? When have you offered any apology for your uncharitable and proud behaviour?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)