Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by knightmeister
You might want to keep in mind that the words of Jesus support my position and not yours.----ToO-------


...but which words do you mean ? Do you mean the sum collection of actual words Jesus spoke or the small subset of words that only ToO deems worthy of analysis or taking seriously?

Do you not see that your assertion that the words of Jesus s ...[text shortened]... or that matter) then fine , but don't give us the "words of Jesus support my position " BS.

And the smear campaign continues.

You never did tell me what you do for a living. Are you a politician? You seems to have a lot of the prerequisites: talking out both sides of your mouth, not allowing facts to get in the way of making a point, making up whatever you deem necessary to make a point, etc. You're a natural.

Nice to see I'm improving. You say that I "discount more than 50% of what [Jesus] says". If I remember correctly, less than a week ago it was more than 70%. At this rate, it won't be long until I'm down to 0%

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
And the smear campaign continues.

You never did tell me what you do for a living. Are you a politician? You seems to have a lot of the prerequisites: talking out both sides of your mouth, not allowing facts to get in the way of making a point, making up whatever you deem necessary to make a point, etc. You're a natural.

Nice to see I'm improving. Y than a week ago it was more than 70%. At this rate, it won't be long until I'm down to 0%

Why do you say it's a "smear" campaign whilst at the same time you refuse to address any of the points I make in an adult logical manner?

I quote Jesus' clear and explicit teachings "when he the Comforter comes he will guide you into all truth" and what do you do?

Nothing ....No counterargument , no explanation of why these words should not be taken seriously . Zilch.

Instead , you resort to a clever (like a politician) tactic of completely evading the question altogether and making it out to be a "smear". A smear campaign usually contains unfounded accusations , but my reasons for saying you are being hypocritical here have been outlined clearly with evidence which you are free to contest at any point. Would you like me to restate it in case you forgot???

You expect others to take you seriously when you quote the clear and explicit teachings of Jesus but do not see any responsibility to reciprocate. You then accuse others of extrapolating when infact you are being highly selective in which words and teachings you choose to take seriously. You also criticise others when they attempt to engage in a debate on these words you quote but then refuse to engage in a debate on the words others want to quote.

To summarise ... I accuse you of...

1) Selectivity and lack of understanding of context with Jesus's words
2) Inconsistency of argument (one rule for you , another for me)
3) Extrapolation and an inability to own the fact that you are interpreting as much as the next man.
4) An inability to engage with the full range of what Jesus taught

Have a look at what's going on here ToO . It may be painfiul to face but it's me that is coming up with an adult , coherent argument to support my accusations and it's you that's being the politician and evading the actual debate. All I'm doing here is looking at what logic and argument you are using to support your position and then turning it around back on to you to see what you do. It's evident that you can dish it out alright but you can't handle it when it comes back . That's why you play with loaded dice. You can't afford not to.

I ask again ...why do you only take some of Jesus's clear teachings seriously and not others? (loaded dice)

Stick to the point ToO and be consistent if you dare! If you can't be consistent within your own arguments and logic then you are only cheating yourself really.

(BTW- Politician? Let's just say I have a passing interest in Psychology)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why do you say it's a "smear" campaign whilst at the same time you refuse to address any of the points I make in an adult logical manner?

I quote Jesus' clear and explicit teachings "when he the Comforter comes he will guide you into all truth" and what do you do?

Nothing ....No counterargument , no explanation of why these words should not be
(BTW- Politician? Let's just say I have a passing interest in Psychology)

Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown yourself to be completely illogical. You've lost touch with reality.

What's most pathetic is how you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown ...[text shortened]... you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

"I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get" ----------ToO--------------------

However , my recent point is based on the logic that when Jesus tells us something clearly and explicitly we should take him very seriously (remind you of any particular stance? Hmmm.... )


Jesus says explicitly that we are to be guided into all truth by the "Comforter" (Holy Spirit) so I feel perfectly entitled to ask you about this. Is that not fair and logical? If not why not? If this logic is flawed then you need to think about it , because it's the same logic I borrowed from you.

All you are doing is sawing away at the very branch you are sitting on. Why do you argue so inconsistently with one rule for you and one for me?

Let me explain...

If person A uses logic B to support position X then person D is entitled to use logic B in his argument against person A because person A has validated it first.

If person A rejects person B 's argument then he must then retract his own position because it is also based on logic B.

All your accusations are just smokescreens to cover your inconsistency . You don't hold yourself to the same logic that you preach to others. It's a self contradictory position and your only way out is to deflect or make unsubstantiated accusations with no back up argument.

You seem to feel absolutely no obligation to apply the logic you use to your own position and maintain an adult , consistent discussion where the rules apply to BOTH parties.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown ...[text shortened]... you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

What's most pathetic is how you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man ---toO-----

How can I smear you when I know nothing about you ? I only judge you by the inconsistency of your position and what you say. I've said before that a smear is an unfounded allegation but I'm backing up what I'm saying here with evidence and argument. That's why you hate it.

You're a funny fellow ToO . You come on a heated forum with your controversial stance on Jesus and then cry foul when someone takes you to task on it. Did you not realise that someone would pick up on the logic behind your position and throw it back at you? How naive are you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
"I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get" ----------ToO--------------------

However , my recent point is based on the logic that when Jesus tells us something clearly and explicitly we should take him very seriously (remind you of any particular stance? Hmmm.... )


Jesus says explicitly that we are t ...[text shortened]... and maintain an adult , consistent discussion where the rules apply to BOTH parties.

Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown yourself to be completely illogical. You've lost touch with reality.

What's most pathetic is how you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown ...[text shortened]... you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient?----ToO-----

I am confident that I can prove that this idea is not as illogical as it sounds based on the NT and the words of Jesus. Care to try me out? Or will it be more deflections? Would you like me to prove this? How about we conduct an experimental discussion on this subject to see just how "illogical" I am being. It's time to put up or shut up matey!

Originally posted by knightmeister
How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient?----ToO-----

I am confident that I can prove that this idea is not as illogical as it sounds based on the NT and the words of Jesus. Care to try me out? Or will it be more deflections? Would you like me to prove this? How about we conduc ...[text shortened]... on this subject to see just how "illogical" I am being. It's time to put up or shut up matey!

Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown yourself to be completely illogical. You've lost touch with reality.

What's most pathetic is how you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I've told you time and again, I've stopped addressing your "points" because you're about as illogical as they get; you talk in circles; you misrepresent the position of others; you lie, tell half-truths, distort things, etc. How can anyone have a logical discussion with someone who believes that God is both omniscient and not omniscient? You've shown ...[text shortened]... you follow me around from thread to thread with your smear campaign. You're a sick man.

You know your mantra has now become so finely tuned that you are actually able to repeat yourself word for word from one post to the next. How do you do it?
Maybe we have reached the point where I need to ask you to lay out the groundrules for a discussion regarding what I am allowed to say and not say? Would you hold yourself to your own rules though?

My argument on the omniscient/not omniscient thing would have been to use jesus as an illustraton of it.

Step 1---Would be to show how Jesus claimed he was co - substantial with the Father and part of the Truine God (lots of evidence there I feel)

Step 2 Would be to use jesus's words to show how "the Son" does not know things that the Father knows ( eg- the hour of the second coming - the centurion's faith)

All I would have to do is show how the words of Jesus support the idea that he is part of the Trinity and the Godhead. You would dispute this no doubt but the evidence for it would still be there so it would be impossible for you to argue that I was way "off base" on this. You would have a hard time showing that the Trinity is a wacky idea made up by men with no grounds in jesus's words.

Once I had shown this to be true, then the rest is easy. I would just point out that part of the Trinity(Jesus) does not know everything , but the other (Father) does. Thus God (in the form of the trinity) is both omniscient/not omniscient.

Of course , this is a totally "mad" idea and I must have no logic at all. But hey , at least I'll put my logic out there to be tested and I won't cry foul if someone wants to pick it up and run with it.