Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Magesterium is.

It comes from the word for “Teacher.” The Church has the authority to teach, which includes the authority to interpret.

We do not “interpret” the Magesterium. We are taught under its authority.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t waste your breath. michaelp has been told several times what the Magisterium is. He pays no attention. He just likes saying: ‘Can you interpret the Magisterium?’ Presumably he thinks it is a good debating technique to say something which makes no sense at all and then put a wink smiley at the end of it.
 
OK Folks. Let’s focus. The question is “Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?”
  1. Sola Scriptura is nonsense.
  2. The other Sola Scriptura is nonsense.
  3. Any Sola Scriptura is nonsense.
  4. All Sola Scripturas are nonsense.
  5. The question ‘Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura’ implies that there might be a right sola scriptura. The notion of there being a right sola scriptura is nonsense.
There. The matter is settled. Let’s move on.

By the way, have you noticed how michaelp likes to use the term Solo Scriptura? Yes that’s an ‘o’ not an ‘a.’ Ever wondered why? Ask me if I have wondered why? OK, I’ll tell you. No. I have never wondered why. For me it is a mystery, plain and simple.
 
Ani Ibi:
I wouldn’t waste your breath. michaelp has been told several times what the Magisterium is. He pays no attention. He just likes saying: ‘Can you interpret the Magisterium?’ Presumably he thinks it is a good debating technique to say something which makes no sense at all and then put a wink smiley at the end of it.
Click to expand...
This is actually a standard tactic – to make a nonsense argument, with a sub-text. He’d like to get someone to argue against him, thus getting them to accept by default that we do “interpret” the Magesterium.

It’s a form of begging the question.
 
vern humphrey:
This is actually a standard tactic – to make a nonsense argument, with a sub-text. He’d like to get someone to argue against him, thus getting them to accept by default that we do “interpret” the Magesterium.

It’s a form of begging the question.
Click to expand...
And doomed from the get-go.

Do you have a list of standard tactics? I do. PM me and we’ll compare notes.
 
Ani Ibi:
I wouldn’t waste your breath. michaelp has been told several times what the Magisterium is. He pays no attention. He just likes saying: ‘Can you interpret the Magisterium?’ Presumably he thinks it is a good debating technique to say something which makes no sense at all and then put a wink smiley at the end of it.
Click to expand...
Darn . . . you got me.😉
 
40.png
michaelp:
Here is a list: ramdac.org/fallacies.php?fallacy=Introduction

Hope you all are doing well.

Michael
Click to expand...
I notice that list doesn’t include your approach of stating a bogus position (like “interpreting” the Magisterium), having it thoroughly refuted, then coming back later and repeating the same bogus position – in the hopes this time you’ll find someone who doesn’t have the background to refute it.
 
vern humphrey:
I notice that list doesn’t include your approach of stating a bogus position (like “interpreting” the Magisterium), having it thoroughly refuted, then coming back later and repeating the same bogus position – in the hopes this time you’ll find someone who doesn’t have the background to refute it.
Click to expand...
Ah tautology! How rhythmic, but how totally devoid of music or sense. michaelp needs an audience. Supposedly he teaches Bibliography and some thing else which I forget. Oh yes, I think he teaches historical-grammatical-cultural-literary hermeneutic. I called him on the shakiness of the grammatical part but, as is his wont, he hasn’t responded. No graciousness there. Anyway, you’d think he’d get his jollies teaching his classes. Why do you think he comes on these forums? Any thoughts? I think it is for the negative attention.
 
Ani Ibi:
Presumably he thinks it is a good debating technique to say something which makes no sense at all and then put a wink smiley at the end of it.
Click to expand...
Nice observation, Ani. That was the response I got to my last post to him. Considering that I also posted the same thing on the Clement/John 6 thread in response to a post of his on there (and didn’t get a response there either) it brings to mind this observation:
vern humphrey:
I notice that list doesn’t include your approach of stating a bogus position (like “interpreting” the Magisterium), having it thoroughly refuted, then coming back later and repeating the same bogus position – in the hopes this time you’ll find someone who doesn’t have the background to refute it.
Click to expand...
 
vern humphrey:
I notice that list doesn’t include your approach of stating a bogus position (like “interpreting” the Magisterium), having it thoroughly refuted, then coming back later and repeating the same bogus position – in the hopes this time you’ll find someone who doesn’t have the background to refute it.
Click to expand...
Nope! As Homer would say, “Wohoo.”

Just kidding.

Michael
 
Ani Ibi:
Ah tautology! How rhythmic, but how totally devoid of music or sense. michaelp needs an audience. Supposedly he teaches Bibliography and some thing else which I forget. Oh yes, I think he teaches historical-grammatical-cultural-literary hermeneutic. I called him on the shakiness of the grammatical part but, as is his wont, he hasn’t responded. No graciousness there. Anyway, you’d think he’d get his jollies teaching his classes. Why do you think he comes on these forums? Any thoughts? I think it is for the negative attention.
Click to expand...
Could it be the assertations are not mine??? You can go here and see what I teach: www.thetheologyprogram.com. Actually, you can watch it if you would like.

Michael
 
40.png
mtr01:
Nice observation, Ani. That was the response I got to my last post to him. Considering that I also posted the same thing on the Clement/John 6 thread in response to a post of his on there (and didn’t get a response there either) it brings to mind this observation:
Click to expand...
Come on mtr01. You my friend. We have good discussion. Maybe we don’t convince each other of anything, but it is still good. Right? Besides, whenever I post something, I am only one, I cannot possibly respond to all the discussion, can I?

Have a great night.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
Come on mtr01. You my friend. We have good discussion. Maybe we don’t convince each other of anything, but it is still good. Right? Besides, whenever I post something, I am only one, I cannot possibly respond to all the discussion, can I?

Have a great night.

Michael
Click to expand...
Michael…Many of us here on the forum give you the benefit of the doubt…but when your responses start to pile up on the side of willful ignorance (or rather obstinance, or perhaps something more nefarious…), we can’t help but reassess our original assumptions about you.

For example…(and this is just since I’ve bothered to take note…)
How Sufficient is the Scripture?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37044
Is Eucharistic Adoration Idolatry
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=41001
The Sola Scriptura link you offered earlier in this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp

Heck!!! I even offered to talk about it on your Grammatico-historical ground…and you ignored it…(don’t bother now…)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=41866

You parade your knowledge around as if you are an authority in and of yourself–but "conveniently “don’t understand” or fail to “see the connection” to the point of willful ignorance. Furthermore, you state repeatedly that you “have been clear” and the poster challenging you needs to check out other threads, or re-read some vague post of yours earlier in the thread…this is a pattern. Don’t be surprised that people are catching on–change you tactic or change your name if you want dialogue again.
 
P.S. The eternal optimist in me is still saying the rosary for you…😛 😃
 
Dude…

**Read **your own quote at the bottom of each and every post you make…:whistle:
“He is not fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose”
Click to expand...
Give it up already!..
 
40.png
michaelp:
Come on mtr01. You my friend. We have good discussion. Maybe we don’t convince each other of anything, but it is still good. Right? Besides, whenever I post something, I am only one, I cannot possibly respond to all the discussion, can I?

Have a great night.

Michael
Click to expand...
Sure I consider you my friend. However, I (along with the others) have picked up this recent trend of yours. It’s one thing to be unable to respond to all the posts written to you (I fully understand), but it’s quite another to make a claim on one thread, not to respond to evidence to the contrary, then to make that same claim on another thread…and still not respond in any meaningful way when the same counter-evidence is provided.

I have enjoyed the discussions in which you have participated and in most cases you present well-thought out arguments for your position. These recent tactics, however, aren’t worthy of you, in my humble opinion.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
You parade your knowledge around as if you are an authority in and of yourself–but "conveniently “don’t understand” or fail to “see the connection” to the point of willful ignorance.
Click to expand...
“Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorance is bulletproof.”
---- Uncle Herbivore
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Michael…Many of us here on the forum give you the benefit of the doubt…but when your responses start to pile up on the side of willful ignorance (or rather obstinance, or perhaps something more nefarious…), we can’t help but reassess our original assumptions about you.

For example…(and this is just since I’ve bothered to take note…)
How Sufficient is the Scripture?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37044
Is Eucharistic Adoration Idolatry
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=41001
The Sola Scriptura link you offered earlier in this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp

Heck!!! I even offered to talk about it on your Grammatico-historical ground…and you ignored it…(don’t bother now…)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=41866

You parade your knowledge around as if you are an authority in and of yourself–but "conveniently “don’t understand” or fail to “see the connection” to the point of willful ignorance. Furthermore, you state repeatedly that you “have been clear” and the poster challenging you needs to check out other threads, or re-read some vague post of yours earlier in the thread…this is a pattern. Don’t be surprised that people are catching on–change you tactic or change your name if you want dialogue again.
Click to expand...
Felicity, you don’t have to become angry just because I am not convinced of most of the arguments. I could say the same thing about you, but I would never accuse anyone of such a thing. You have become VERY uncharitable all of the sudden and I don’t know why. Ani always has, but you have jumped on her train.

You must understand that their are true disagreements and there will continue to be. I don’t get upset because you don’t come to believe the way that I do. I just leave it in God’s hands and try to be gracious. But when the rhetoric turns to attack (as it always it with Ani–for that is all she seems to have), then the discussion necessarily comes to a conclusion.

I don’t have anything against you. I happen to disagree very strongly with your beliefs, but that is life. If you don’t want to talk to be about it in a real and charitable manner, fine. Be like Ani and alienate yourself from such discussion. But I suggest that you llok to Phil, Pax, Dennis, and Lisa and learn from them how to converse with people with whom you disagee, don’t follow Ani.

Michael
 
40.png
mtr01:
Sure I consider you my friend. However, I (along with the others) have picked up this recent trend of yours. It’s one thing to be unable to respond to all the posts written to you (I fully understand), but it’s quite another to make a claim on one thread, not to respond to evidence to the contrary, then to make that same claim on another thread…and still not respond in any meaningful way when the same counter-evidence is provided.

I have enjoyed the discussions in which you have participated and in most cases you present well-thought out arguments for your position. These recent tactics, however, aren’t worthy of you, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I have just seen it as some light hearted humor, but I am sorry and it will cease. I just don’t like to be serious ALL the time.

Michael
 
vern humphrey said:
“Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorance is bulletproof.”

---- Uncle Herbivore
Click to expand...

Too all of you: What if I posted this quote concerning you all? What if I called someone “stupid”? I would be called a Catholic hater and be attacked left and right. Why doesn’t anyone correct this kind of rhetoric?

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top