one on one

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'd like to engage in a dialouge with ironmonk. Only iron and pick an issue.

If he says that he won't because he's attempted before, then someone else can. But I have never had a one on one I don't think, especially with someone of the likes of iron. (by that I mean of his personality and his stances which are often completely different than mine)

I know there will be a point where we disagree and then all can see it. No one can just leave.You have to respond to all my points and I will to yours. We have to dialouge for awhile. And we should agree to disagree and continue dialouge for awhile. Unless you are against conversing to respond to all points and agreeing to disagree?

[ironmonk]

[b]The topic is Authority: Church, Bible, or ourselves?[/b]



Pope... I would hope you knew me better than that... Of course I am.



God Bless,
ironmonk Edited November 18, 2004 by ironmonk

[littleflower+JMJ]

hey guys....this thread was asked for this to be a one-on-one


thanks peeps

Hey PPX if you want to do a single thread with someone open a new one please

Edited November 19, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay thanx iron. we can talk about the pope. (i think that's what your pope comment was for? i think a post got knocked)

either way, my opening statement.. which is by no means comprehensive, just a way to start dialouge.. in fact i'd even call it my opening ramblings .. is that the pope's current position is not adequately defined in early history. the current position of the pope gradually came to what it was.

it doesn't seem like enough evidence supports the early papacy. even catholics will admit that the pope's early authority was not full.. they argue that the position grew into what it was much like doctrine develops. i have no beefs with this if it happens properly.. but i do have beefs with it if it didn't. i don't see having enough of an assurance that it happened properly. it seems that it could have very easily been more man made.. that the Catholic Church grew from a strongly respected and influential church into what it was. and in fact i'd think that if it was as the Catholic Church says then it'd be more apparent that it was.

i promise i'll be back if i'm gone a day or two. sometimes i tend to be a bit transient. but we'll eventually agree to disagree.

Edited November 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 18 2004, 11:44 PM'] okay thanx iron. we can talk about the pope. (i think that's what your pope comment was for?)

either way, my opening statement.. which is by no means comprehensive, just a way to start dialouge.. in fact i'd even call it my opening ramblings  .. is that the pope's current position is not adequately defined in early history. the current position of the pope gradually came to what it was.

even catholics will admit that the pope's early authority was not full.. they argue that the position grew into what it was much like doctrine develops. i have no beefs with this if it happens properly.. but i do have beefs with it if it didn't. i don't see having enough of an assurance that it happened properly. it seems that it could have very easily been more man made.. that the Catholic Church grew from a strongly respected and influential church into what it was. and in fact i'd think that if it was as the Catholic Church says then it'd be more apparent that it was.

i promise i'll be back if i'm gone a day or two. sometimes i tend to be a bit transient. but we'll eventually agree to disagree.  [/quote]
No... it was not the Pope.

It was Authority... the teaching authority to what is true in the Christian faith....

Is the authority the Church, the Bible, or ourselves?

Where was "Pope" in those three choices?


[quote]even catholics will admit that the pope's early authority was not full.. they argue that the position grew into what it was much like doctrine develops.[/quote]

Wrong. The Pope's early authority was the same as it is today. Any Catholic that argues what you claim is wrong about the Catholic Faith.

Please don't get sidetracked with this... this is another topic.


Again... the topic is Authority:

What is the teaching authority for what is true in the One Christian faith built by Christ....

Is the authority the Church, the Bible, or ourselves?



God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited November 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

As I edited in my last post, I saw that you must have been talking to someone with pope in their name. And indeed that was verified upon closer inspection of that mod. Yes, I have a reading problem...

[quote]Wrong. The Pope's early authority was the same as it is today. Any Catholic that argues what you claim is wrong about the Catholic Faith.
Please don't get sidetracked with this... this is another topic.
Again... the topic is Authority:
What is the teaching authority for what is true in the One Christian faith built by Christ....
Is the authority the Church, the Bible, or ourselves?[/quote]

And another note is that I should clarify that "even many catholics"; I don't want you to think I'm saying all of them will; I just meant a substantial number. But anyway, I'm not here to discuss with a ghost, a theory, I'm here for you.

I will need to clarify that statement that you said was wrong. What I meant was that even they would admit that the apparent papacy was not necessarily apparant with what we know. Of course they'd say it was true. And of course if you have faith the way you do then you won't be able to acknowledge that based on what knowledge we have, one couldn't really make an undisputable decision. I think we should be talking about probability and reasonableness.

So, why do you insist that there is no doubt that the papacy was apparent? (all I can think of that you will show me is the quotes from catholic.com and maybe a few references to people calling the bishop of rome by pope.. of course I have a response to that, but I'd like for you to make your own statements)

Edited November 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 19 2004, 12:55 AM'] As I edited in my last post, I saw that you must have been talking to someone with pope in their name. And indeed that was verified upon closer inspection of that mod. Yes, I have a reading problem...



And another note is that I should clarify that "even many catholics"; I don't want you to think I'm saying all of them will; I just meant a substantial number. But anyway, I'm not here to discuss with a ghost, a theory, I'm here for you.

I will need to clarify that statement that you said was wrong. What I meant was that even they would admit that the apparent papacy was not necessarily apparant with what we know. Of course they'd say it was true. And of course if you have faith the way you do then you won't be able to acknowledge that based on what knowledge we have, one couldn't really make an undisputable decision. I think we should be talking about probability and reasonableness.

So, why do you insist that there is no doubt that the papacy was apparent? (all I can think of that you will show me is the quotes from catholic.com and maybe a few references to people calling the bishop of rome by pope.. of course I have a response to that, but I'd like for you to make your own statements) [/quote]
Stop trying to change the subject. The subject is Authority.

The fact that the Pope has the same office today as Peter did in 33 AD, has nothing to do with faith. It has always been apparent. This is a different topic.


The topic is Authority: Church, Bible, or Self?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Stop trying to change the subject. The subject is Authority.

The fact that the Pope has the same office today as Peter did in 33 AD, has nothing to do with faith. It has always been apparent. This is a different topic.


The topic is Authority: Church, Bible, or Self?[/quote]

I'm talking about authority. In terms of the papacy. That is where I chose to discuss.

But before I try to figure out what you're getting at, because you're not making yourself clear, first, I'll ask this question. How am I changing the topic? I think you'll have to put some thought into answering that, and I bet if I wasn't pointing this out right now, you'd not even answer the question. I'm not trying to change the topic by these incidental points, you're just looking at how we approach this discussion way too narrowly. If I don't figure out how you tink I'm changing the topic, I can't fix the problem or have you. That's bad; then the discussion's not gonna get anywhere.

I assumed that you wanted to talk about authority in terms of the papacy. I think we need to determine who you are asking the question to. If I were you asking that question, I'm guessing that you're probably just asking in general. The question needs to be answered by someone. I approached answering the question from what you'd say, as I wanted you to pick a topic. I know you'd pick church. And because those categories are broad, I tried to limit the discussion to how you'd continue to answer it. Because you'd answer church, and that entails authority of the papacy (of course in terms of Jesus, God, etc.. I undersatnd that but I'm not gonna say you're changing the topic just because you want to clarify that).

Or, now that you say I'm changing the topic, perhaps you just want to talk about Church in broad, philophical terms.

Or maybe you want me to pick one. Again you're not phrasing the question very clearly. Is it which do I choose? I choose all three. Do you want to discuss them in philosphical terms?

The church is my fellow man and I always respect their inpute and accept it when I think it's warranted, even when it's hard to but I know it's right. Yes this is based one me.. but remember.. even I do what is hard because God guides me. The bible is inspired by God though I would not say infallible. And I am the person who decides all this. And now you say.. then ultimately it is me deciding. Yes that is true, but the Holy Spirit or God or whatever you want to say is guiding me. And with my faith I can say that is the way God intended.

Now you'll say that okay look at someone that has no standards? Is that person right with God? It depends on if they are resisting the spirit. That's all I can say.

Is this going to be me saying things and you asking questions?

Either way, it seems to me that with your faith you can say nuhuh, I can say yuhhuh; at least that's where it looks like this is going. Or you can fill me in. I never knew you to be a philosophical person.. or at least the type that is willing to engage in much of any extended philosophical discussion. Maybe you just don't want to waste time on petty people such as me. But please fill me in in that regard. And fill me in in this regard: am I approaching the question right now?

I know several things that you could say if I am.. most of which are probably too complex for you to retort back.. and I don't even know if I'm engaging to your standards.. so I'm not even gonna try responding in advance. I'll let this go naturally.

Edited November 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote]I'd like to engage in a dialouge with ironmonk. Only iron and pick an issue. [/quote]

A reminder of your post.


[quote]I'm talking about authority. In terms of the papacy. That is where I chose to discuss.[/quote]

You are trying to change the subject.

Authority: Church, Bible, or Self.

Which do you believe to be true and why.

The issue is authority. Not the Papacy.

If you can't stick to the topic, you will prove my statement true. I'm not going to explain how it's true yet... I'm giving you another chance to stick to the topic.


[b]Authority: Church, Bible, or Self?[/b]

The Pope is part of the Church, the Papacy is a different topic.

A Catholic says the Church is the Authority.
Some protestants say the bible is the authority.
Some protestants say they are the authority.

What do you say the authority is and why?

[quote]because you're not making yourself clear,[/quote]

I've been very clear, if you can't see the clarity then you have no business trying to debate. You are wasting my time and everyone's time reading this. You are even wasting your time because if you can't see how clear I've been on the question, then you are too confused to have a logical debate.


One more time....

[b]Who/What is the Authority on the Christian Faith to what is true in the Christian faith:[/b]
ONLY 3 POSSIBLE ANSWERS:
Option 1: The Church
Option 2: The Bible
Option 3: Self


Pick one of the answers and tell everyone here why your answer is right. This is how a debate works... You asked me to pick a topic, I chose Authority and even spelled out the context. Now, you pick an answer that you think is right and tell us.

If you cannot understand this very basic arguement - the premis for all division in all who call themselves Christian - then you should not be debating anyone, but should be reading all you can on it.

Edited November 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I've been very clear, if you can't see the clarity then you have no business trying to debate. You are wasting my time and everyone's time reading this. You are even wasting your time because if you can't see how clear I've been on the question, then you are too confused to have a logical debate.
One more time....
Who/What is the Authority on the Christian Faith to what is true in the Christian faith[/quote]

You didn't say this until now.
[quote]What do you say the authority is and why?[/quote]

I was trying to pick one and discuss what I perceive as the main point from your perspective. To spell it out for you, I didn't know that you wanted me to pick one from my perspective because you did not specify.

And I didn't realize that you wanted to discuss it in gernal philosophical terms; in fact I'm still not sure how you want to discuss it. You didn't specify.

If you can't see how you're not using clarity then you have no business trying to debate. You are wasting my time and everyone's time reading this. You are even wasting your time because if you can't see how clear you've not been on the question, then you are too confused to have a logical debate.




Now here is my answer again. All three of your chioces.
[quote]The church is my fellow man and I always respect their inpute and accept it when I think it's warranted, even when it's hard to but I know it's right. Yes this is based one me.. but remember.. even I do what is hard because God guides me. The bible is inspired by God though I would not say infallible. And I am the person who decides all this. And now you say.. then ultimately it is me deciding. Yes that is true, but the Holy Spirit or God or whatever you want to say is guiding me. And with my faith I can say that is the way God intended. [/quote]

Please respond to it this time. May I ask why you didn't respond to it last time?

Edited November 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote]You didn't say this until now.[/quote]

Wrong. I did write it, it was in my first response.

Basic English comprehention.

This has nothing to do with philosophical arguements... You obviously are very confused and you are wasting my time, people reading this, and your own time. Your time would be better spent learning because you don't know enough to debate.

The topic "Authority" would be understandable by anyone who is Christian and studied the least bit.

Have three choices: "Church, Bible, [u][b]OR [/b][/u]Self" with a question mark denotes which of the three do you believe to be true.


I can ask any halfway knowledgable protestant or Catholic what is authority and they would know what I was talking about... I wouldn't have to give the three choices... the three choices were to clarify it.

You can't believe all three are the authority to the Christian faith.

You need to study before you can debate anything.

This proves my point: illogical, half thought out, unstudied, and typically unfinished.



This is over unless you can comprehend the most basic protestant/Catholic arguements... and have a stand on one side or another.

You need to spend your time reading.

Here is a comprehensive list of the various faiths with links to those faiths to learn:
[url="http://www.baptistboard.net/board/default.asp?CAT_ID=2"]http://www.baptistboard.net/board/default.asp?CAT_ID=2[/url]




God Bless.

Edited November 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

How does this
[quote]The topic is Authority: Church, Bible, or ourselves?[/quote]

translate into this?
[quote]What do you say the authority is and why?[/quote]

[quote]"Church, Bible, OR Self" with a question mark denotes which of the three do you believe to be true.[/quote]

And how does that ? denote what I believe to be true? I was responding to how I thought you'd choose. Then I went about talking about it in those terms that I thought you'd use. I don't know how else you'd have talked about it.

This is a lack of basic english communication. But anyway, now that we have this settled as to what you're talking about, there's no need to continue bickering.

But furthermore, it seems that you are committing the locial fallacy of either/or if you insist that I choose. I've never known anyone who looked at the world in such artificial and simple black and white terms.

But I'll humor you and say church.


Now I know what you'll say in response. Either in trying to discuss this with me in philosophical terms or in history terms. Iron, I have studied these issues for years. I remember awhile back that you said you'd been studying for 4 years; back then I had been studying that long too. The only difference is that I stopped a year ago other than here at phatmass. What I'm getting at is you sholdn't think that just because you studied means you're right or that my critical thinking or words have no value. Anyway, I say church. Pretty much the same way I explained it last time. I'll let this progress naturally instead of setting out all te arguments that you'll use because I got to get going. But I can if you want to test me; then you can show me where I'm wrong. But I think we should just go and do this naturally where ou respond then I do.

Edited November 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 19 2004, 11:53 AM'] I remember awhile back that you said you'd been studying for 4 years; [/quote]


Maybe your problem is your memory?

I have never stated that I've been studying only 4 years.
I've been doing apologetics for 4-5 years.... 10-20 hours a week.
I've been studying Scripture since I was six.
I've been studying the history of Christianity since I was about 15.... 31 now.


About the question, everyone else I've ever dialoged with knew perfectly well what it meant.


[quote]But furthermore, it seems that you are committing the locial fallacy of either/or if you insist that I choose. I've never known anyone who looked at the world in such artificial and simple black and white terms.

But I'll humor you and say church.[/quote]

With every post you make my point even more solid.

It is not a fallacy. When one learns Christianity, they must have an authority to learn from, and there are only three options... Church, Bible, or Self.

Truth cannot contradict truth... all three cannot be true.

If you don't know what the teaching authority is, then you really should learn. That would explain so many illogical posts.

If you're "humoring" me, then you only make yourself look foolish because you are saying that you don't know. How can you argue when you don't have a stance?! Is it wise to argue when you don't have a stance?


[quote]I've never known anyone who looked at the world in such artificial and simple black and white terms.[/quote]

You believe this because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have never met someone so illogical, half thinking, and unstudied in my life who wants to debate.



[quote]What I'm getting at is you sholdn't think that just because you studied means you're right or that my critical thinking or words have no value.[/quote]

What I think is that you do not know how to critical think and know nothing about the topics you have tried to argue with me.

I've dialoged with hundreds of anti-Catholics from numerous denominations with all kinds of different levels of study, from the newly "saved" to the Masters of Divinity pastors... none have had the nonunderstanding that you have.

No where in history have I seen any beliefs that are like yours.

It appears that you make up what you "believe" as you go along.

If you have studied, then whoever or whatever "taught" you, really didn't teach you anything.


It is pointless to debate with you... you don't have a stance and cannot comprehend the question.

You wrote: PICK AN ISSUE
You don't understand the MOST BASIC issue to Christianity....

What is the Authority?
The Catholics say The Church.
The protestants say either Bible or Self.

All three cannot be true. Only one can be true.

Believing the Church is the authority means the Church has the say in what Scripture means, faith, and morals.

Believing the Bible is the authority means that the only teaching authority is the bible because we can read it and know because we are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Believing Self to be the authority means that the church is in our heart and we are the authority in teaching ourselves from the bible. (very similar to Bible authority)


You "picked" Church - THEN THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE.

How can you debate when you don't know how or anything about the topics or context.




[quote]The church is my fellow man and I always respect their inpute and accept it when I think it's warranted, even when it's hard to but I know it's right. Yes this is based one me.. but remember.. even I do what is hard because God guides me. The bible is inspired by God though I would not say infallible. And I am the person who decides all this. And now you say.. then ultimately it is me deciding. Yes that is true, but the Holy Spirit or God or whatever you want to say is guiding me. And with my faith I can say that is the way God intended. [/quote]

You didn't choose all three... you chose self.


Have you read the bible? Read it about 20 more times, then maybe you'll have a better understanding.

Your "theology" is anarchy and chaos. Your feable attempts at circular arguements are full of holes and show you don't know what your talking about.

Pleanty of links have been posted for you, you need to learn.

Here they are again:

Start here, read them all... then you should be able to debate with something of value:
[b]Catholic:[/b]
[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ics/ap0002.html[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html[/url]

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp[/url]


[b]non-Catholic:[/b]
[url="http://www.JackChick.com"]http://www.JackChick.com[/url]

[url="http://www.IanPaisly.net"]http://www.IanPaisly.net[/url]

[url="http://www.thelutheran.org/"]http://www.thelutheran.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.cofe.anglican.org/"]http://www.cofe.anglican.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.ucc.org/"]http://www.ucc.org/[/url]

[url="http://church-of-christ.org/"]http://church-of-christ.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.pcusa.org/"]http://www.pcusa.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.pcanet.org/"]http://www.pcanet.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.elca.org/"]http://www.elca.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.umc.org"]http://www.umc.org[/url]

[url="http://www.methodist.org.uk/"]http://www.methodist.org.uk/[/url]

[url="http://www.adventist.org/"]http://www.adventist.org/[/url]



Nothing else to write. I'm not wasting anymore time.

If anyone else wants to educate her if she isn't wise enough to go to the above links to get the clues on what this is all about, please be my guest.

Over the past 11 months of dealing with this kind of pointless debating with her, I have no more patience for her, and will not be posting on this thread again.


[b]Sirach 22:8 [/b]
He talks with a slumberer who talks with a fool, for when it is over, he will say, "What was that?"

[b]Sirach 21:14 [/b]
A fool's mind is like a broken jar-- no knowledge at all can it hold.

[b]Proverbs 26:4 [/b]
Answer not the fool according to his folly, lest you too become like him.
[b]5 [/b]Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes.

Edited November 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

So do you want me to go to the links and pick out the holes? I will if that's what you want. One by one. I'll summarize and pick out the holes.. I know where to look for the holes as I've said I've done this many many years. Then you can respond. If you want to take this approach, then let me know how you want to do it.. like one by one I pick out the hole sand you defend or what.


[quote]What is the Authority?
The Catholics say The Church.
The protestants say either Bible or Self.
All three cannot be true. Only one can be true.[/quote]

I know plenty of christians who have beliefs similar to mine. Usually they are the ones who are not extreme enough to engage in depth theological discussions. The ones who are are the ones who you talk with. I agree I am rare, but it seems that many christians are similar to me. They look past the bickering and see the point of the Gosple. Of course this is where we'll dispute.

Here's where your either/or is wrong. Even you would not say that you do not follow the bible and self. Because you do. Right? If you're not following either, then you're either a contradiction as a Catholic who goes against the bible, or you're not acknowledging that you are the person who decides to be Catholic. It seems that you want the answers to be put into your lap without you having to decide. "This is what God intends, no if's and's or but's". As a former catholic that was my catharsis.

Now, that said, it would seem that you should ask me which part of the authority do I stress as primary? If that was the question.. which you didn't specifiy.. then I think that I follow church.I shouldn't have said that I'm humoring you; instead I should have said that I am indeed stressing church. I don't think that even many protestants would say that they don't follow the church; even the bible says to. They probably vary in how they stress it. I and them who follow church but not Catholic Church follow the same rationale as you, only our church is different than yours.

So anyway it seems that we should be discussing our ideas of church. How do you want to go about this? Do you just want to have these types of philosophical discussions or do you want to talk about facts of history and such? I can point out some points of why I'm not fundamental or RC if you want if you want some fact discussions. It seems that you need to specify a little bit more how you want to approach this.


It seems to me that you set out and try to disprove the Catholic Church or find someone else who can prove their position. You can't find either, so you think you've proven it. When I was a catholic I did the same thing. I thought, well if I can't disprove it, I'll just give it the benefit of the doubt. II bet you find it soothing to see so many incoherent non RCs who are stubborn and make odd positions. fear that you are so engrained in it that you can't acknowledge your margins of error.

I do know a lot of stuff here. Lord's Supper, praying to the saints, purgatory, early church history, baptism, all the sacraments for that matter and a whole lot of other stuff. (and I got critical thinking like it's nobody's business) I even got better arguments in favor of the papacy that you didn't use, and I'm not even the one arguing that side. Maybe we can discuss miracles; as that was a major reason that I stayed catholic for a while when the doubt got to me.

SO lots of ideas of stuff that we can talk about. It seems that at a certain point you have to stop just throwing factoids back and forth to strengthen your position and actually try to interpret and defend your position philosophically. And as far as factually, I guarantee you that you will find places that you need to research or won't be able to determine. If you don't come to these conclusions then it's only because you're stuck back basic arguing prots vs. catholics. I think it's time you moved up a notch. If you think I'm wrong here of this appraisal, let's discuss it.

Do I have to fit your mold of how to debate? Looking at those links and choosing a side, so that you can use your script and I can use mine? and we can get no where? Maybe instead of arguing we should look at the facts that you have or that I have and then just talk about them. Whoever's being unreasonable, or if I am being unreasonable, everyone can see it as it's just you and me bud. Actually it will probably end up that no one is really being unreasonable. Of course the stubborn are from both sides. I know you'll disagree and we should discuss that. I just hope you don't expect me to choose a script.

So, I want to continue whatever you choose. You seem to think you have the answers, maybe you can answer mine or at least discuss them. Again reasonablenes will be apparent. I don't mean to egg you on or make you not respond, but you shouldn't have anything to hide right? I'm letting you decide. How do you want to approach this?

Edited November 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp[/quote]

Also. Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You give me specifics to look at, but these are the specifics you told me not to talk about.

I still really don't understand how you want to approach this.