Is the pope the head of the Church or is Christ?

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Quite wrong, on several counts. 1. Dictionaries don’t prove anything, they just give what the editors consider common meanings. And, as you seem to consistently ignore, different dictionaries have different definitions in different orders for the terms you are focusing on. No dictionary can tell what a given author means by a word in a given context.

We must have a resource for word meanings that both of us agree upon, or we cannot possibly arrive at a conclusion. If a dictionary is not that resource that we can both agree upon, what is?
David Brown:

1. There is no such thing as “true accepted English meanings.” Meanings are not “true” or “false” and they come from use/context/intention and not some dictionary. You are trying to argue from authority and then creating that authority on your say-so out of thin air. No lexicographer or linguist (or philosopher of language) would be silly enough to speak of “true accepted meanings”–which is why you won’t find them using such language.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. We need to have meanings for words that are commonly accepted or else, words can mean anything. If words can mean anything, then we will be no farther ahead than the people were at the Tower of Babel after God confounded their language. No one will be able to understand anyone else.
David Brown:

1. You have focused on the meaning of “English” words. This also isn’t right. The official language of the Church is not English. English words are used to translate other words and those other words take their meaning from their languages and uses (which are often very precise and technical). The fact that you are not familiar with those meanings is not a failing of the Church.

So, what is the official statement about the pope written in the official language of the church? What word in the official language was translated as “perpetual”?
David Brown:

1. The fact that you claim your confusion as arguing against the Church (“Why don’t they use ____, if that is what they really mean”) shows that you are not trying to understand what the Church says and arguing against what the Church actually teaches, but instead you are trying “persuasive definitions,” “poisoning the well,” “straw man,” and a host of other logical fallacies to make your point.

Unless the Catholic church is trying to confuse the readers, the Catechism in English should be written in the most precise language that conveys what is really meant in the official language of the Church. If “perpetual” is the closest that the church can come when translating the Catechism into English, then it is not my fault if I accept the literal meaning of the word used.
David Brown:

1. The very most you could be said to show by that line of fallacious reasoning is that you don’t understand what the Church means by certain words and that you don’t like it. Hardly something to be proud about.

Apparently the Catholic church does not understand which words should be used when translating in English. If the church uses a word that means: “lasting for eternity”, but instead only means until the end of the age, then it is the church that is failing in its attempt to communicate its official stand to readers of its Catechism.

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

homer:

I am terribly confused by your reply. If I am not mistaken, after Christ ascended, He did send the Holy Spirit to Earth, but not as an invisible, mysterious, shrouded in secret spirit, but as a glorious Spirit wreathed with an Eternal Fire of Life. This Spirit descended on the Apostles specifically in the guise of tongues so that the Apostles might (as Jesus commanded) “make disciples of all nations.” Hence, the Spirit worked through sinful men to teach the Truth and continues to do so through the papacy and bishops.

This DOES NOT mean that the Holy Spirit does not work through your average Joe. This is very evident when you look back over the biographies of saints. If we allow Jesus to fully enter us, to love and serve him in everything we do (for we are all called to be saints), His Spirit will give us grace and strength and guidance toward God.

It is inarguable that Jesus’ perfect disciple was His mother, Mary, yet, pure and sinless as she was, she was not called to join Jesus in His ministry. Yet, as Catholics profess in the “Hail Mary” she is “full of [God’s] grace”.

I am not sure how what I wrote earlier is blasphemy. You wrote: Honestly can’t you realize that your sentence (When Christ ascended, He realized that He needed a human to act in His place ON EARTH) is an exact and perfect definition of the work and the role of Holy Spirit??? While I respond: absolutely. The Spirit works through sinful men to quench Christ’s thirst for souls.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

We must have a resource for word meanings that both of us agree upon, or we cannot possibly arrive at a conclusion. If a dictionary is not that resource that we can both agree upon, what is?.

1. Dictionaries give a limited range of what a word might mean; they do not say what a word must mean. 2. There is no official dictionary. As I mentioned before you get different definitions and different orderings of definitions in different dictionaries. 3. To determine what a person (or Church) means by a word you have to ask them, a dictionary cannot answer that question. The whole question of trying to use definitions as arguments can be found in most good logic books or, for example, A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston.

rod of iron:

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. We need to have meanings for words that are commonly accepted or else, words can mean anything. If words can mean anything, then we will be no farther ahead than the people were at the Tower of Babel after God confounded their language. No one will be able to understand anyone else…

Simple. You said there were “true accepted English meanings.” I said there is no such thing recognized by lexicographers, linguists, or philosophers of language. Meanings are never “true” and there is no single “accepted” meaning for the words you try to persuasively define to make your point. As for understanding meanings (other languages), see any good book on linguistics or philosophy of language.
rod of iron:

So, what is the official statement about the pope written in the official language of the church? What word in the official language was translated as “perpetual”? .

Others have repeatedly told you what those specific words mean in the Catholic tradition. You have repeatedly attempted to force your definition on the Chruch in an attempt to make some point. Understanding meaning or translation are not done in this way.
rod of iron:

Unless the Catholic church is trying to confuse the readers, the Catechism in English should be written in the most precise language that conveys what is really meant in the official language of the Church. If “perpetual” is the closest that the church can come when translating the Catechism into English, then it is not my fault if I accept the literal meaning of the word used.

Here you get to another logical fallacy–ad hominem. Assuming an bad motive on the Church doesn’t help your case, it makes you seem both ignorant and biased. Your fault, apart from terrible logic, is to assume an incorrect definition in order to argue against the Church. “Perpetual” is a more accurate word than an earlier suggestion of “temporary” because “perpetual” can mean (for example, The American Heritage Dictionary has it ) " Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time," which conveys a more theologically nuanced and accurate idea than “temporary.”
rod of iron:

Apparently the Catholic church does not understand which words should be used when translating in English. If the church uses a word that means: “lasting for eternity”, but instead only means until the end of the age, then it is the church that is failing in its attempt to communicate its official stand to readers of its Catechism.

Here you go back to being snide and hateful (and ignorant), repeating your misunderstanding of what a dictionary is and is not for, and thinking that somehow you have said something intelligent let alone intelligible. Argue with what the Chruch teaches and not with what you think it teaches.

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

1. Dictionaries give a limited range of what a word might mean; they do not say what a word must mean. 2. There is no official dictionary. As I mentioned before you get different definitions and different orderings of definitions in different dictionaries. 3. To determine what a person (or Church) means by a word you have to ask them, a dictionary cannot answer that question. The whole question of trying to use definitions as arguments can be found in most good logic books or, for example, A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston.

What you are suggesting is literary and verbal chaos. If you will not accept a dictionary for the source in which you go to for word meanings, yet do not suggest another resource that we both can agree on for these word meanings, then what we have is a dilemma. A dictionary is not written to give us an exhaustive list of meanings that a word can possess, but such a book gives us common ground in which to build an understanding. If a person (or church) can mean anything when using a word, then we will have confusion.

For example, if I am talking about my dog, and I really mean my house, you will not understand what I am talking about. Confusion will enter the picture. If I am talking about grass, and I refer to it as lollipops, you will think that I am speaking in code. Is that what the Catholic church does – speak in code?

As for an official meaning for a word, I am more concerned with the literal meaning based upon the etymology of the word. With the word “perpetual”, it comes from the Latin word “perpetuus”, which means: “continuous”. That Latin word does not mean: **“continous **until a definite point in time.”

Since I do not accept the Catholic church as the absolute authority for word meanings, it would do me no good to accept the way that the church may have re-defined the word “perpetual”. Of course, what you are speaking about is known as “pragmatics”. Pragmatics is the study of what words mean based on the intent of the one using the word. But this can only go so far, without causing confusion.
David Brown:

Simple. You said there were “true accepted English meanings.” I said there is no such thing recognized by lexicographers, linguists, or philosophers of language. Meanings are never “true” and there is no single “accepted” meaning for the words you try to persuasively define to make your point. As for understanding meanings (other languages), see any good book on linguistics or philosophy of language.

Was the word “true” the word that got you so riled up? What I meant to say is that words have a commonly accepted meaning or meanings which are conveniently recorded in a dictionary or lexicon. Such a book is very useful to base our understanding on. But if you are suggesting that the Catholic church has its own dictionary where it can re-define words to mean the complete opposite of what those words are commonly accepted to mean, then I must ask, what gives the Catholic church the idea that it can alter the English language in such a way? If such a practice is acceptable, then there should be no problem with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any other religious group when they choose to alter the meaning of words to mean whatever they want them to mean and whatever suits them and their belief. You are treading on dangerous ground with such a concept.

You speak of linguistics, which leads me to ask, "Do you have a degree in linguistics?"

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Others have repeatedly told you what those specific words mean in the Catholic tradition. You have repeatedly attempted to force your definition on the Chruch in an attempt to make some point. Understanding meaning or translation are not done in this way.

Oh, really? So, instead of using the most precise words to explain a concept to the people, the Catholic church would rather take words and make them mean the opposite of what they are generally accepted to mean? How does this promote understanding? It is no wonder why the Catholic church had the Bible chained to the pulpit for so many centuries. The Catholic church wants their members to believe whatever it tells them to believe and then indoctrinates them to believe this. Such an approach is a type of mind-control.
David Brown:

Here you get to another logical fallacy–ad hominem. Assuming an bad motive on the Church doesn’t help your case, it makes you seem both ignorant and biased.

Oh, yes. Time to insult me because I speak against your Almighty Church. Claiming that I am ignorant and biased does nothing to help your case either. It is clear that you wish to deify your church and make it infallible, yet the church is made up of fallible and finite human beings. You accuse me of bias, but it is quite clear that you have a heavy bias in favor of the Catholic church. You are showing how heavily indoctrinated you are with Catholic doctrines.
David Brown:

Your fault, apart from terrible logic,

How is my logic, terrible? Because I am not speaking as a result of the same mind-control that you are speaking from?
David Brown:

is to assume an incorrect definition in order to argue against the Church.

Incorrect definition? I am using the literal meaning based on the etymology of the word. I am not going to accept the alteration of that word that the Catholic church feels it has a right to make.
David Brown:

“Perpetual” is a more accurate word than an earlier suggestion of “temporary” because “perpetual” can mean (for example, The American Heritage Dictionary has it ) " Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time," which conveys a more theologically nuanced and accurate idea than “temporary.”

But such a definition does not change anything. What you believe about the reign of your Vicar of Christ cannot be described as "Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time", because indefinite means: "lacking precise limits".

But this is not what you claim. You claim that the pope is only in power until Christ returns. The church has put a precise limit upon the duration of the reign for the Vicar of Christ. The limits are: from the time Christ left the Earth until the time that He returns to Earth again. Those are limits, even if you do not know how long the duration of that reign will be.

To be indefinite, there can be no limits. An indefinite long time, means that there is no limit to that long time. But the Vicar of Christ is suggested by you to be in power for "a definitely long time."

Again, the word “perpetual” is not the appropriate word to describe what you are trying to describe.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Here you go back to being snide and hateful (and ignorant), repeating your misunderstanding of what a dictionary is and is not for, and thinking that somehow you have said something intelligent let alone intelligible. Argue with what the Church teaches and not with what you think it teaches.

Here you go again with your insults. Insulting my intelligence will not make you victorious. You seem to think that you can counter my alleged snide, hateful, and ignorant remarks with ones of your own. If is won’t work for me, how will it work for you?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I don’t think the quesiton that MariaG asked was worded correctly. The Catholic Church itself teaches that Christ is the head of the church in the Catechism. Christ chose a vicar to represent him on Earth. Why did he do that? Because that’s just how smart God is. He knew that if we didn’t have any governing authority on Earth that we would become our own and our pride would get the best of us. That’s simply what roi and homer’s problem is: pride. They can’t accept that God put a man in charge on Earth to tell them what to do. They don’t realize that when a pope makes a statement, it’s Christ’s words that are given to him and he’s guided by the holy spirit on what to say on what subject of faith and morals. As protestants usually do, they focus on the either-or, not the both-and. The pope shepherds the church on Earth, though Christ is still the head. The pope takes nothing away from Christ’s headship whatsoever, though roi and homer seem to think so. Like I’ve said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, LEARN THE FAITH AND THEN ARGUE IT, YOU’RE NOT HELPING YOURSELF IF YOU DON’T!

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

Here you go again with your insults. Insulting my intelligence will not make you victorious. You seem to think that you can counter my alleged snide, hateful, and ignorant remarks with ones of your own. If is won’t work for me, how will it work for you?

Very nice. Impugn the Chruch’s motives and then attack me for calling you on it. Good job.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

What you are suggesting is literary and verbal chaos. If you will not accept a dictionary for the source in which you go to for word meanings, yet do not suggest another resource that we both can agree on for these word meanings, then what we have is a dilemma. A dictionary is not written to give us an exhaustive list of meanings that a word can possess, but such a book gives us common ground in which to build an understanding. If a person (or church) can mean anything when using a word, then we will have confusion.

You speak of linguistics, which leads me to ask, "Do you have a degree in linguistics?"
(continued …)

No, what I am suggesting–actually what I stated–is that you are mis-using a dictionary. (I showed your post to several English profs. here and they laughed their heads off.) Words do not always have their literal meanings from their etymologies, and words don’t always take their literal meaning. Noted Prostestant scholar D.A. Carson discusses “Word Study Fallacies” in his Exegetical Fallacies book. For the word “perpetual,” I gave a dictionary definition that fits the Catholic understanding–and rejects yours. The American Heritage Dictionary gives a possible meaning as “Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.” This fits “continuing until Jesus returns” since we don’t know when that return is (it is “indefinite”) but you reject this definition because it doesn’t fit your “argument.” Persuasive Definition (or Poisoning the Well) are well-known logical fallacies. Since the definition above is in a dictionary, then by your logic it is a common accepted meaning.

As for your comment rejecting the Chruch is an “absolute authority for word meanings,” another problem. Words take their meaning from their use (circumstance, function, intention). It is not the Church but it is true for anyone that words take their meaning from the speaker. You say you are confused and that is the Church’s fault for not using words you understand. First, others understand, so it can’t be that the words are unintelligible. Second, if you don’t understand and if you want to understand, then you shouldn’t go around blaming the Chruch but try to find out what it means–several other posters have tried to explain that, but you have been too busy with word games.

Since you asked, my degrees are in Philosophy. I have taught Logic, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, etc. at the university level for 7 years.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

Oh, really? So, instead of using the most precise words to explain a concept to the people, the Catholic church would rather take words and make them mean the opposite of what they are generally accepted to mean? How does this promote understanding? It is no wonder why the Catholic church had the Bible chained to the pulpit for so many centuries. The Catholic church wants their members to believe whatever it tells them to believe and then indoctrinates them to believe this. Such an approach is a type of mind-control.

Precision in words is not determined by a dictionary but by use. I have given one dictionary definition that makes the point the Church wanted to make by “perpetual.” The Church is following a dictionary, just not yours. The words are clear enough for others to understand, so if you have a problem… As far as attacking the motives of the Chruch again and again, it doesn’t advance your argument or give you any credibility.
rod of iron:

Oh, yes. Time to insult me because I speak against your Almighty Church. Claiming that I am ignorant and biased does nothing to help your case either. It is clear that you wish to deify your church and make it infallible, yet the church is made up of fallible and finite human beings. You accuse me of bias, but it is quite clear that you have a heavy bias in favor of the Catholic church. You are showing how heavily indoctrinated you are with Catholic doctrines.

How is my logic, terrible? Because I am not speaking as a result of the same mind-control that you are speaking from?

Incorrect definition? I am using the literal meaning based on the etymology of the word. I am not going to accept the alteration of that word that the Catholic church feels it has a right to make.

It is not an insult to point out a logical fallacy. Also, I did not say you were ignorant and biased but that your comments sounded ignorant and biased. The subject of my sentence was your comments not you and I said “seemed” and not “were.” Had you actually paid attention to what I said you would have seen that. Persisting in using logically fallacious arguments, combined with personal attacks, makes anyone seem ignorant and biased–this is first semester informal logic. As far as my being “indoctrinated” (another ad honinem), I have only commented on your “argument.”

Your logic is terrible because your premises are weak (mis-using the dictionary, mis-stating the view you are attacking) and you have a number of logical fallacies in your argument–which I have pointed out above. Since I told you in my previous post, I will remind you that I was making a professional comment based on years of undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate formal training in logic and 7 years of teching logic at a university level. It is not “mind-control” that leads me to judge your argument deficient but formal training and experience.

Your claim to be using the “literal meaning based on the etymology of the word” has been dealt with elsewhere (and above). One futher point: If words take only the literal meaning based on etymology, then why do dictionaries give multiple definitions not limited in that way? Why do dictionaries give different definitions? Why do dictionaries order their definitions differently?

 

[Fiat]

Dear Rod of Iron:

It’s tortuous logic for you to conclude that because the CCC states that the pope is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops that this somehow means the “Pope is the visible replacement of Christ for eternity” (your words). That’s a preposterous leap in logic, though I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem otherwise articulate and intelligent. In this passage, the CCC states that bishops find their unity among eachother by looking toward the pope. I don’t see anywhere in this passage from the CCC that articulates or implies your conclusion.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Very nice. Impugn the Church’s motives and then attack me for calling you on it. Good job.

How did you call me on my impugning the Church’s motives, when you questioned my ability to say something intelligent or intelligible? By questioning this, you implied that I am not intelligent. You can sing your little song about how illogical I am, but this does not change the perception I get from your responses. By questioning whether or not I said something intelligent is a dig against me. You are not going to get to far with me in this discussion if you must question my ability to respond intelligently. Is that the way logic works? Is it completely logical to question someone’s ability to respond intelligently when you do not like what that person is saying? Good job!

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

What you are suggesting is literary and verbal chaos.

The fact is that Peterine succession goes on until Christ returns. That is what we believe. If that is not what you think we believe, then do your homework.

RBushlow:

Re: Is the pope the head of the Church or is Christ? . . . .I realize that you have the idea that the office of Pope will go on forever, even past the end of time. This is incorrect. The office of the Pope will be vacated when Our Lord returns in Glory to judge the living and the dead. That’s the way it is.

---

Pax

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

No, what I am suggesting–actually what I stated–is that you are mis-using a dictionary.

Misusing a dictionary? How so?
David Brown:

(I showed your post to several English profs. here and they laughed their heads off.)

Ah, yes. English professors. I have not met one who impressed me when speaking of the actual essence of the English language. They are great with literary analysis, where they try to figure out what the author of a book meant when writing that book. But literary analysis deals more with the philosophies of the time the book was written, as well as psychological and sociological aspects of the culture that the book sprung out of, rather than the actual linguistical aspects of the language. Also, English professors are great with teaching composition, but they must depend upon the rules that linguists have constructed for the English language. So, your English professors can laugh their heads off, but I will likewise laugh my head off at your statement that you went to your English professors about linguistical matters.
David Brown:

Words do not always have their literal meanings from their etymologies, and words don’t always take their literal meaning.

I never said either of these things, as far as I can remember. What I did say was that I was interested in the literal meaning of the words.
David Brown:

Noted Prostestant scholar D.A. Carson discusses “Word Study Fallacies” in his Exegetical Fallacies book. For the word “perpetual,” I gave a dictionary definition that fits the Catholic understanding–and rejects yours.

And what dictionary did you find that definition from which claims that** perpetual** means until the end of the age?
David Brown:

The American Heritage Dictionary gives a possible meaning as “Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.”

When was this American Heritage Dictionary of yours published? Was it published before the church used the word “perpetual” in the paragraph that Myrrh quoted? It does not matter what the word may mean since that word was used. You cannot honestly claim a definition for a word if that definition was not known or accepted at the time that the word was used.
David Brown:

This fits “continuing until Jesus returns” since we don’t know when that return is (it is “indefinite”) but you reject this definition because it doesn’t fit your “argument.”

But I have already responded to that argument. Just because the time of Christ’s return is not known by you or me, it does not make the duration of time until He returns indefinite. It is definite that He will return. Indefinite means: "Unclear; vague" or "Lacking precise limits". Neither of these definitions fit the time period that this vicar of Christ is going to reign on Earth, according to Catholic belief, because there is a definite beginning and ending. Indefinite does not mean "unknown". The time limits are set, regardless of whether you or I or anyone on Earth is privy to that information. For example, if you and a friend of yours made an agreement where you set limits for it, if I did not know what these limits were, would it make the length of that time period uncertain or indefinite? Hardly. The time period would have precise limits, regardless of whether or not I was privy to the information.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Persuasive Definition (or Poisoning the Well) are well-known logical fallacies. Since the definition above is in a dictionary, then by your logic it is a common accepted meaning.

You will need to inform me what this “poisoning the well” is. It is not in my dictionary. If a dictionary does not contain commonly accepted meanings, then what good is a dictionary? None whatsoever.
David Brown:

As for your comment rejecting the Chruch is an “absolute authority for word meanings,” another problem. Words take their meaning from their use (circumstance, function, intention). It is not the Church but it is true for anyone that words take their meaning from the speaker.

Really? So if I said that God is evil, but claimed that evil meant righteous, you would have no problem with such a statement? I can re-define any word to whatever meaning I choose, and there is no problem with this practice??? Such a practice would cause confusion and chaos. You would have another Tower of Babel among the English-speaking world. If anyone could apply any definition they choose to any word, English teachers could no longer take of points for grammatical errors or not using a word correctly. That concept is just silly.
David Brown:

Since you asked, my degrees are in Philosophy. I have taught Logic, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, etc. at the university level for 7 years.

Yet, no mention of a degree in Linguistics. And you tell me that I should read books on Linguistics? Well, I should inform you that I do have a degree in Linguistics. I completed several classes in Linguistics to obtain my degree. I took classes in Syntactic Theory, Phonological Theory, Morphology, Semantic Theory, and Historical Linguistics. So, I must chuckle when a person with degrees in Philosophy attempts to lecture me on Linguistics.

 

[rod_of_iron]

RBushlow:

The fact is that Peterine succession goes on until Christ returns. That is what we believe. If that is not what you think we believe, then do your homework.

How is that a fact? It can only be a fact if it has been proven. You say that you believe it to be true. But this makes what you believe only an opinion. Even if millions of people believe this to be true, unless it is proven, it is only an opinion.

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Precision in words is not determined by a dictionary but by use. I have given one dictionary definition that makes the point the Church wanted to make by “perpetual.” The Church is following a dictionary, just not yours. The words are clear enough for others to understand, so if you have a problem… As far as attacking the motives of the Chruch again and again, it doesn’t advance your argument or give you any credibility.

It is not an insult to point out a logical fallacy. Also, I did not say you were ignorant and biased but that your comments sounded ignorant and biased. The subject of my sentence was your comments not you and I said “seemed” and not “were.” Had you actually paid attention to what I said you would have seen that. Persisting in using logically fallacious arguments, combined with personal attacks, makes anyone seem ignorant and biased–this is first semester informal logic. As far as my being “indoctrinated” (another ad honinem), I have only commented on your “argument.”

Your logic is terrible because your premises are weak (mis-using the dictionary, mis-stating the view you are attacking) and you have a number of logical fallacies in your argument–which I have pointed out above. Since I told you in my previous post, I will remind you that I was making a professional comment based on years of undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate formal training in logic and 7 years of teching logic at a university level. It is not “mind-control” that leads me to judge your argument deficient but formal training and experience.

You keep claiming that I have a number of logical fallacies in my argument, but you are not showing me what they are. You claim that I am mis-using a dictionary, yet you do not show me exactly how I am doing so. You need to do more than just claim something is so. You have to support your claim.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

You keep claiming that I have a number of logical fallacies in my argument, but you are not showing me what they are. You claim that I am mis-using a dictionary, yet you do not show me exactly how I am doing so. You need to do more than just claim something is so. You have to support your claim.

If you would read my posts you would find an explanation of your mis-use of the dictionary (confusing, for example, what a would may mean with what a word must mean or does mean in a given context), a counter-example (I cited another dictionary with a definition of “perpetual” different from yours and one in line with the Catholic understanding), and an explanation of the proper use of a dictionary. You would also find specific passages singled out as being fallacious with the reasons given. For example, forcing a definition on an opponent to make an argument (a definition that they do not accept, for example your “definition” of the “true meaning” of “perpetual”) is a fallacy of poisoning the well or persuasive definition. It is a fallacy because you are putting words in their mouth, not trying to understnd them but to argue against them. Your whole argument depends on this fallacy (which is why it should be redone). I have also pointed out that others have given you the definitions of those terms used by the Church, which is what you should be arguing against. I have even given references to standard works that should be easily accessable. This is about as much as can be done in such a forum.

You, on the other hand, have just repeated your claims and engaged in personal attacks on the Chruch’s motives and on me (which is the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person and not the argument. It is a fallacy because it changes the discussion from the agrument, which should be what is discussed, to the person or persons making the argument, which is irrelevant to the truth of their claims).

Another point of logic: A bad argument doesn’t prove its conclusion false; it just means there is no reason to accept the conclusion. So there is a difference between pointing out the flaws of an argument and arguing against its conclusion.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

You will need to inform me what this “poisoning the well” is. It is not in my dictionary. If a dictionary does not contain commonly accepted meanings, then what good is a dictionary? None whatsoever…

I did inform you. I gave the definition along with the term. I didn’t say it was in your dictionary (it is in better dictionaries, though). I did say it was in any standard logic book. So I gave a definition of the term and told you where you could find out more about it. The fact that it is not in your personal dictionary is irrelevant. It is also a mistake to think that a single dictionary (your is probably not unabridged in any case) contains the meanings for every word in use in a given language. Perhaps you need to get a better dictionary.
rod of iron:

Really? So if I said that God is evil, but claimed that evil meant righteous, you would have no problem with such a statement? I can re-define any word to whatever meaning I choose, and there is no problem with this practice??? Such a practice would cause confusion and chaos. You would have another Tower of Babel among the English-speaking world. If anyone could apply any definition they choose to any word, English teachers could no longer take of points for grammatical errors or not using a word correctly. That concept is just silly…

First, you pose a false dilemma (a dilemma is supposed to force you to choose from only 2 options, a false dilemma only pretends to limit the options to 2). There are plenty of other possibilities that conforming to your dictionary (or to your prefered literal meaning based on etymology) or having any word mean anything (you have a lot of faith in your particular dictionary–Is it inspired?). If you chose to define “evil” as “righteous,” then in your language I would have to use your definition to communicate with you. By the way, when I was going to school in Boston I learned that something “wicked” meant (or could mean) “really good” as in “That was a wicked movie.”
rod of iron:

Yet, no mention of a degree in Linguistics. And you tell me that I should read books on Linguistics? Well, I should inform you that I do have a degree in Linguistics. I completed several classes in Linguistics to obtain my degree. I took classes in Syntactic Theory, Phonological Theory, Morphology, Semantic Theory, and Historical Linguistics. So, I must chuckle when a person with degrees in Philosophy attempts to lecture me on Linguistics.

Nice personal attack (ad hominem again). First, since your mis-use of a dictionary and related problems indicated that you did not understand language, I suggested works in linguistics to discuss those issues, as you seemed interested in them. (Several English professors here thought you didn’t even have a basic composition course, I will have to tell them they were wrong.) I didn’t know you claimed professional expertise. Second, claiming to have a degree in linguistics, makes those mistakes more egregious as you should be familiar with them–if even a lowly philosophy professor can know about them. Third, it still doesn’t fix the terrible logic of your argument which depends on logical fallacies.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

Misusing a dictionary? How so?
…)
To keep on repeating myself:You confuse what words may mean with what words must or do mean. You also use one of the possible meanings of a word, like “perpetual,” to force your point while ignoring other possible meanings that don’t make your point. This is especially bad as your opponents choose one of those meanings you ignore.
rod of iron:
Ah, yes. English professors. I have not met one who impressed me when speaking of the actual essence of the English language. They are great with literary analysis, where they try to figure out what the author of a book meant when writing that book. But literary analysis deals more with the philosophies of the time the book was written, as well as psychological and sociological aspects of the culture that the book sprung out of, rather than the actual linguistical aspects of the language. Also, English professors are great with teaching composition, but they must depend upon the rules that linguists have constructed for the English language. So, your English professors can laugh their heads off, but I will likewise laugh my head off at your statement that you went to your English professors about linguistical matters…)

Ah, but some of them have degrees in linguistics and graduate degrees in English. And if you want to get techinical, linguists depend on logic to get and formulate their rules.
rod of iron:

I never said either of these things, as far as I can remember. What I did say was that I was interested in the literal meaning of the words…)

But, as you should know, words don’t always take their “literal meaning” and it is not clear that every word has a single literal meaning. Further, it is far from established that you have that single, for all time, literal meaning.
rod of iron:

And what dictionary did you find that definition from which claims that** perpetual** means until the end of the age?..)

Red Herring–to bring up an issue or point to distract from the question at hand (a free definition).
rod of iron:

When was this American Heritage Dictionary of yours published? Was it published before the church used the word “perpetual” in the paragraph that Myrrh quoted? It does not matter what the word may mean since that word was used. You cannot honestly claim a definition for a word if that definition was not known or accepted at the time that the word was used…)

Here you seem to contradict yourself (again). You used a modern dictionary to define “perpetual,” and then you tried the “literal meaning” based on etymology. You never used, or spoke about, what words meant in the time they were first used by the Church.

CONT.