Spirituality
07 Oct 06
10 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL! You of all people should not be accusing other posters of not "following a discussion".
Obviously you can't follow a discussion. If I was like you, I would have spent 10 pages pointing out that the Catechism itself isn't infallible either. Instead, unlike you. I dealt with the point raised. The CE statement is correct. But you may rave on for another 20 pages if you wish with your hairsplitting, nitpicking attempts at arguing about a single ted the Doctrine. If it is "free from Doctrinal errors" what is left of your nitpickery?
And which specific instance are you referring to when you say I used "strawman" incorrectly? (Don't say "all" - that's a cop out. If you think I used it incorrectly, prove it.)
The CE did not simply directly state Church doctrine (as taught by Trent, for instance) -- it used the Trent formula as part of a larger argument supported by theological and Biblical references. That doesn't mean it was wrong (i.e. objectively false), but that doesn't mean it's objectively true either. The imprimatur ("free from doctrinal errors" ) just means that.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIn particular, can the RCC say that fetuses that are miscarried go to heaven and still retain the "original sin" doctrine?
Getting back to the original question, which LH refuses to discuss:
In particular, can the RCC say that fetuses that are miscarried go to heaven and still retain the "original sin" doctrine?
Perhaps it should be added "in its present form?"
Yes it can.
10 Oct 06
3 edits
An erudite discussion of the issues involved:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html
EDIT: The comment by SDG about a third of the way down the page is quite interesting. Essentially, he asks whether the point of death itself may not be the point of regeneration ("baptism" ) for unbaptised as it is for martyrs and catechumens.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy is it incorrect? You mischaracterize a position and attack that mischaracterization.
EDIT: And you and Ivanhoe love the word "strawman" though you, like him, constantly use it incorrectly.
I'm beginning to think your use of the strawman technique is out of pure ignorance and not out of sophistry.
10 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe most ironic part of this entire discussion is that you previously indicated that you believed in Limbo as the most logical disposition of this problem, yet now insist that RCC doctrine is perfectly consistent with the idea that unbaptized infants and fetuses can gain salvation. Why bother to believe in Limbo at all then?
LOL! You of all people should not be accusing other posters of not "following a discussion".
And which specific instance are you referring to when you say I used "strawman" incorrectly? (Don't say "all" - that's a cop out. If you think I used it incorrectly, prove it.)
The CE did not simply directly state Church doctrine (as taught by Tre tively true either. The imprimatur ("free from doctrinal errors" ) just means that.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat generally happens is you completely fail to adequately spell out your position, usually deliberately, leaving others to try to figure out what your position is. Then when they attempt to respond to the position you have stated, you come back with some extra point that you hadn't previously articulated and cry "strawman" over and over and over again. This is yet another example of your extreme intellectual dishonesty, though your contribution to the entire thread is basically dishonest as you have previously stated you accept the idea of Limbo as the most rational explanation for a problem that you now deny exists.
LOL! You of all people should not be accusing other posters of not "following a discussion".
And which specific instance are you referring to when you say I used "strawman" incorrectly? (Don't say "all" - that's a cop out. If you think I used it incorrectly, prove it.)
The CE did not simply directly state Church doctrine (as taught by Tre ...[text shortened]... tively true either. The imprimatur ("free from doctrinal errors" ) just means that.
10 Oct 06
2 edits
Remember this from March 7 of this year:
LH: Why not? They can't enter Heaven due to original sin, and don't deserve Hell as they've never sinned. Limbo as a state of eternal natural happiness sounds like a perfectly nice place to be.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39420
EDIT: Compare and contrast with THIS PAGE:
In particular, can the RCC say that fetuses that are miscarried go to heaven and still retain the "original sin" doctrine?
LH: Yes it can.
QED.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't parrot anyone, I explicitly explained why it is a strawman.
Since all you did is repeat LH's falsehoods and I responded directly to him, I see no need to dignify your parroting with a separate response.
Your answer to LH is nothing but a bunch of derogatory comments about him.
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAnswer what? here's what LH said in the abortion thread in Debates:
No, it's my fifth.
Care to answer or you'll continue evading?
Well, your entire moral compass seems to be oriented towards SCOTUS interpretations of the US Constitution; so it's reasonable to infer you place great faith in it.
Where's the "strawman"?
EDIT: I also see that you are trying to deflect the thread away from its real topic now that your buddy has been shown to have taken a contradictory position to what he did a few months ago. Why don't you stay on-topic?
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're diverting the issue. Again.
Answer what? here's what LH said in the abortion thread in Debates:
Well, your [b]entire moral compass seems to be oriented towards SCOTUS interpretations of the US Constitution; so it's reasonable to infer you place great faith in it.
Where's the "strawman"?
EDIT: I also see that you are trying to deflect the thread away fro ...[text shortened]... ken a contradictory position to what he did a few months ago. Why don't you stay on-topic?[/b]
The strawman is in mischaracterizing the RCC's position on baptism and unbaptized children (by quoting out of context and deliberately forgetting what the RCC says explicitly about the subject) and then attacking that mischaracterized position as incoherent.
PS: How am I deflecting the thread away from its real topic? What LH says his is business, I'm not a Catholic and I obviously don't agree with him on many issues. Buddy? Please.