The Issue Of Infallibility

[dairygirl4u2c]

couse some fundamnetalists do believe me per "only if they reject what they know" and go so far as to say "if they heard anything at all, hey are condemned" (and then go around informing everyone, to either condemn them or save them, i dont know, it's pretty contrived) some are more refined, such as me, and say it has to be a well informed rejection to mean anything. these are usually not as fundamentalist of people.
but for the ones who are, and do the 'superficial rejection' approach, this is yet another example, of how even fundamentalists don't agree on anything exept usually tehir preconceived notions. and it only helps bolster the CC arguent to being a one truth, when they cant even agree on these things.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='LivingStone' timestamp='1288129946' post='2182770']
I want to see a 1-on-1 duel between Shadyrest and Winchester on a very trivial topic.

I am thoroughly amused, but I wish Shady would respond more to Winchester's logical argumentative dismissals of these copy-paste Proddy arguments off of some website.

Does Shady remind anyone who was kicked off of this phorum a couple of months ago? Just saying....
[/quote]

i wanna see him debate brother adam. bro adam would wipe the floor with him.
at the moment, bro adam is more trying to convince him how his approach is wrong first.
it may be the case how you have to refute alll his points, one by one, so he can see how his house of cards is just a bunch of fluff. perhaps only then could he progress into a level 2 debater, something less minor leaques.
if bro adam and others wanted to act like shaddy is, for why they aren't responding, they'd quote the bible and say "dont throw your perils before swines" as is a common point with debates of the nature Shady brings them.
it's a sad predicatble play, "i'm going to say i have to debate you says the bible" (even though they are usually using that as a pretense to be argumentative at best, and bad seeds most realistically) and then the other says "no perilds before swines" and that sorta juvenile banter continues.
it's what Shady is becoming known for.

Edited October 26, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

look at the annulments thread. this seems to be the sort of mature debate and discussion that Shaddy doesn't like to partake.
he'd rather throw out accusations of how annulments are catholic divorce dressed up etc. and then avoid it when he's shown to be wrong. i guess he does have other points, but he could at least concede the reasonableness expicitly here of what's being said. at least plausible. or at least say 'well, okay, it's not just anotehr way to divorce as anyone else does even if i think what does happen is too much' etc etc.
he's not past a level one debater though, so he doesn't do it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is how truth is discerned. you concede points, when the truth opposes you, instead of ignoring it when you realize you are wrong. at least if this is done explicity, it shows it's being done.
perhaps most important in approach the CC or anyting, you start out with "okay, im wrong on this point, or there point is reasonable here" and then move on to the next one. eventually, you will realize the facade you had in your mind wasn't much of anything other than that. as bishop sheen said "most dont realize what it is they are arguing against"

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote] could arguably apply even this to the 'no salvation outside the catholic church'. im the first to say they contradicted themself, but im also willing to say 'plausibly not'. did the popes intend to teach in a strict manner, no salvation outside? if not, they may have been speaking imprescisely, but plausibly enough to say that some may not be technically within the physical CC but a member nonetheless. (i could go on and on for why i dont believe this, but i still would say it's plausible)[/quote]

also, for some of the quotes, the popes were speaking very specifically to former catholics who knew everyting there is to know, and thought 'couldn't noncatholics be saved too?" for a pope to be strict here and say 'no', he might not be referring to everyone. you have to look at hte context of the time. eg, there it was some french men who wanted to follow a different church. the pope was letting them know that to think 'hey we're all chrisitan right' would be impermissible.

[dairygirl4u2c]

some quotes to support purgatory.
i could almost predict the tired arguments he will make against the CC without understanding how bibilcal it is.
there's great websites and books on that, the bible and catholics, if you are interested. it's a lot more bibilcal than most protestants, that's for sure.

QUOTE
1 corinthians 3
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.

Luke 12:41-48 [41] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

[dairygirl4u2c]

some quotes to support purgatory.
i could almost predict the tired arguments he will make against the CC without understanding how bibilcal it is.
there's great websites and books on that, the bible and catholics, if you are interested. it's a lot more bibilcal than most protestants, that's for sure.

QUOTE
1 corinthians 3
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.

Luke 12:41-48 [41] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

[havok579257]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288110535' post='2182683']
You misread me! I didn't mean that what the biblical writers wrote was not infallible, but was referring to the [b]men [/b]whom you say, "compiled" it into the package we have today.
[/quote]


ok, so if the bible is the infalliable word of God but the catholic who put it together are not infalliable and they put it together wrong, then who was infalliable when they put the bible together? martin luther? if someone did not have infallablity when putting the bible togther then who's to say the protestant bible is correct?

you can not logically say the bible is the infalliable word of God, yet anyone who put it together is falliable and the bible is not put together infallible. cause by that logic, the bible, all bibles are not infallible.

[dairygirl4u2c]

one compelling argument catholics make. when judas hanged himself, they in the acts of the apostles found someone else to replace him. were we to think they kept that practice up, why or why not?
course, that gets into. were the apostles infallible in anyting but scdripture? why or why not?
etc etc
and unfortunately it gets into what we're to make of the successors and their infallibility. apparently peter wasnt the only one who spoke infallibly. why could they all maintain the charism of infallibility? obviously they didn't pe rall the division.

Edited October 27, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288109777' post='2182681']

Looks like Constance wasn't infallible after all.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#I"]You don't understand infallibility. Here is a good article.[/url]