Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What points?
the fact that the pope still remains human, posessed of the same cognitive/logical/reasonig abilities while he HAS decread infalliability, then when he hasnt. so either he is always infalliable, or always falliable. you cant have it both ways. the pope doesnt just shout INFALLIABILITY and is powered beyond human levels to become infalliable. even in those two instances, the pope was completely falliable{if you are going by any evidence and rational reasoning}
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the fact that the pope still remains human, posessed of the same cognitive/logical/reasonig abilities while he HAS decread infalliability, then when he hasnt. so either he is always infalliable, or always falliable. you cant have it both ways. the pope doesnt just shout INFALLIABILITY and is powered beyond human levels to become infalliable. even in those two instances, the pope was completely falliable{if you are going by any evidence and rational reasoning}
Yes he can.
Originally posted by Red NemesisThank you for your time.
You know now that I think about it your right I better just get on...oh...wait a sec...PROBABLY! You mean he might be real? How can I stop worrying now?
^what do u mean "yes he can" ??????????/ can what????? i didnt ask you a question, i gave a statement for you to reply to. seems like you answered a question which i didnt ask, lol. is this a debating tactic? well seems like he was completely falliable when he said he was infalliable, which also makes the pope a liar.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^what do u mean "yes he can" ??????????/ can what????? i didnt ask you a question, i gave a statement for you to reply to. seems like you answered a question which i didnt ask, lol. is this a debating tactic? well seems like he was completely falliable when he said he was infalliable, which also makes the pope a liar.
The excessive use of extra question marks alarms me. I can't be sure why you are using a comical number of punctuation marks, but I am sure that it is not necessary.
GMG please correct me if I am wrong in my distillation of your position. While I disagree with your base assumptions, what Leo has said is not true while arguing within the confines of your worldview, within which he has chosen to debate. Also, my knowledge of Catholic tradition is sadly rudimentary.
'Yes he can' refers to the idea that the Pope is not able to selectively become infallable- that is just part of the idea that he is God's will incarnate on earth. The Holy spirit prevents the Pope from being fallible.
By arguing the internal consistency of his faith, you accept the truth of his faith. I sympathize if you wish to challenge the idea that there is a Holy Spirit at all. Your argument here does not hold water though.
@GMG:
It helps understanding if you mimic the verb being used: Leo said 'doesn't just shout...' so it might have been more clear if you had said 'yes he does'. There is a significant difference in the two statements though, and I can accept that you wanted to make the point that not only does he, he is well within his rights (or abilities, however you wish to look at it.)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^what do u mean "yes he can" ??????????/ can what????? i didnt ask you a question, i gave a statement for you to reply to. seems like you answered a question which i didnt ask, lol. is this a debating tactic? well seems like he was completely falliable when he said he was infalliable, which also makes the pope a liar.
I said, yes he can be infallible when speaking ex cathedra and making a official pronouncement on behalf of the Church.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The excessive use of extra question marks alarms me. I can't be sure why you are using a comical number of punctuation marks, but I am sure that it is not necessary.GMG please correct me if I am wrong in my distillation of your position. While I disagree with your base assumptions, what Leo has said is not true while arguing within the confines of your worldview, within which he has chosen to debate. Also, my knowledge of Catholic tradition is sadly rudimentary.
'Yes he can' refers to the idea that the Pope is not able to selectively become infallable- that is just part of the idea that he is God's will incarnate on earth. The Holy spirit prevents the Pope from being fallible.By arguing the internal consistency of his faith, you accept the truth of his faith. I sympathize if you wish to challenge the idea that there is a Holy Spirit at all. Your argument here does not hold water though.
@GMG:
It helps understanding if you mimic the verb being used: Leo said 'doesn't just shout...' so it might have been more clear if you had said 'yes he does'. There is a significant difference in the two statements though, and I can accept that you wanted to make the point that not only does he, he is well within his rights (or abilities, however you wish to look at it.)
so you beleive that just because the pope SAYS that he is speaking ex cathedra, as a result, he becomes superhuman in his cognitive/perceptive and resoning functions to such an extreme degree that he CANT make a wron statement?! utter nonsense.
rednemesis - the holy spirit is a fairytale with nuthing to back it up and everything to negate it. and again, you are saying that just because the pope utters a few words, he becomes supernaturally empowered, which is ridiculous to say the least, not to mention, jas nuthing backing it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i beleive magic MIGHT exist. i beleive SUM forms of beings with great supernatural powers CUD exist. i DONT beleive that a biblical/islamic/judaistic god with all the proclaimed attributes{at the same time} cud exist. its just logical.
So who do I believe...
an infalliable man who knows what he believes...
or some ex-Muslim with an axe to grind who thinks fairies are possible but the Holy Spirit is not?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so you beleive that just because the pope SAYS that he is speaking ex cathedra, as a result, he becomes superhuman in his cognitive/perceptive and resoning functions to such an extreme degree that he CANT make a wron statement?! utter nonsense.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
rednemesis - the holy spirit is a fairytale with nuthing to back it up and everything to negate it. and again, you are saying that just because the pope utters a few words, he becomes supernaturally empowered, which is ridiculous to say the least, not to mention, jas nuthing backing it.
The Holy spirit is a religious idea with no empirical proof. However, if you accept the premise of a Holy Ghost (as you did) then it is entirely possible for it to make a human infallible for a finite period. By accepting his 'Ground rules' you broke your own argument. You said it was illogical, not that it was impossible. There is a major difference.
Originally posted by Leonhartem
i beleive magic MIGHT exist. i beleive SUM forms of beings with great supernatural powers CUD exist. i DONT beleive that a biblical/Islamic/Judaism god with all the proclaimed attributes{at the same time} cud exist. its just logical.
May I ask what you think suggests that 'magic might exist' or that 'some form of being with supernatural powers could exist'? What evidence or observations have led you to this hypothesis? Also, what about the Judeo-Christian God (Yahweh) do you find illogical?