Archbishop Invites Pelosi To Conversation

[SpareTime]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1650957' date='Sep 8 2008, 08:47 PM']also, if you research the doctrine of extra... nulla, "outside the catholic church,,, no salvation", i think you'll find a contradiction in teaching.
not necessarily, once you get into the semantics. but the face value,,,, as you would see on wikipedia if you look up, "extra... nulla",,,, it's apparently a contradiction.[/quote]

No, you won't find a contradiction. The uneducated think it's a contradiction because they don't understand its meaning.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote]QUOTE (dairygirl4u2c @ Sep 8 2008, 09:47 PM)[/quote]


[quote]i don't see how you can ay what i provided is just some quotes.
you could argue that they're just some men who were wrong, not infallible like hte bible, like i'd imagine you'd argue.[/quote]

You can argue anything you want to. What matters is if you can back it up with evidence which I have. So far you have provided an argument with nothing to back it up. I have provided evidence for my case, and I am awaiting you to respond with some evidence to contradict what I showed. You can argue all night, but can you give evidence for it?

[quote]you could argue that they're just some men who were wrong, not infallible like hte bible[/quote]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is infallible? Who says the Bible is infallible and on what authority?

Also, men cannot be "infallible" and again you have provided another misunderstanding view of the word "infallible." The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals when properly understood.

Infallible is meant to describe a decision. So for example a decision can be infallible, (error free) but a person cannot be infallible. The Pope can make mistakes. However, when teaching on faith a morals and in communion with the church, we believe that the teaching is infallible.

[quote]but that the CC hadn't taught itself to be definitive for hundreds of years,,, and then adding those quotes, makes the orthodox position the better one.[/quote]

Could you provide evidence for this? Orthodox position better? How?

[quote]i'd argue what you provided was just some quotes that showed peter had a primary role, that's all. if anything is not definitive, it's what you showed.[/quote]

Again you argue, but you don't back it up with anything. I have made points and I have appropriately backed it up with evidence.

[quote]early history even catholics would claim is where to go for illumination on some things... but that's not the case with papal supremecy.[/quote]

I had a little trouble following that sentence, but I think I see what you are arguing. Again though you don't give me a shred of evidence. Just speculation. How am I to respond when I have displayed my evidence and you reply with thoughts but nothing concrete?


[quote]"I know that the church leaders who decided on what the Bible was going to be acted infallibly because of something called Apostolic Succession. I have already explained that and backed it up."

i wasn't referring to the early christian church. if you look, i was referring to the old testament church in the statement you responded to with the above quote. how do you know the books they compiled were infallible? they didn't have an infallible church in everything else,,, just how to compile that book.[/quote]

They did not compile infallible books. Again, the books are not infallible. Where does it say that the books are infallible? Which books are infallible? What about he Acts of Peter? Is that in your Bible? Please understand what you are talking about before arguing about it.

[quote]also, asking a rhetorical question "if infallible in one instance, why not more" isn't answering it. it could be just that it's infallible in only one instance,,,, why not? if we took your stance, doesn't that mean the old testament church was infallible in the OT,,,, and in their teachigns too?
rhetocial question, as if i'm answering it, though i'm not.[/quote]

You are talking about something that doesn't make any sense. God did not pass down his Apostolic teaching authority to Jesus until the NT. The Catholic Church did not begin until Jesus started it. So for you to talk about "infallible" (which you do not fully understand and therefore cannot adequately argue for or against it) in the OT is a void point also as the Catholic Church was not formed yet.

I might argue about how Washington should have used machine guns against the British but since they had not been invented yet, my point is void.


[quote]also, if you research the doctrine of extra... nulla, "outside the catholic church,,, no salvation", i think you'll find a contradiction in teaching.
not necessarily, once you get into the semantics. but the face value,,,, as you would see on wikipedia if you look up, "extra... nulla",,,, it's apparently a contradiction.[/quote]

Wikipedia. Now THERE is God inspired references. I think I will go on it now and make my self the president of the north pole.

If you want to argue a point, that's cool. However, when you argue stuff in ways that make it apparent that you do not understand what you are talking about, it is impossible to reply as I will be replying to something that is void or nonsensical. Please back up your arguments too with more than opinion and speculation. Spelling helps to as it can be difficult to read when I have to pause at spelling and grammar errors.

Edited September 9, 2008 by eagle_eye222001

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1651006' date='Sep 8 2008, 10:22 PM']No, you won't find a contradiction. The uneducated think it's a contradiction because they don't understand its meaning.[/quote]

what you're saying at best is "i can find a way to contort what was said... and i assume that since you don't agree with me, that you don't know about it". in fact, i know how it's contorted by catholics, and can go further and argue why it probably is a distortion, not just a contortion.

take me up on the debate, and i'll show you who's uneducated

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a101.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a101.htm[/url]




the old testament church relied on the old testament scripture as infallible, long before the CC came along.
yet you act as if no one knew until the CC came along, or at any rate until the canon was ratified.
so you've yet to really respond to this point, cause if they can rely on scripture without being infallible in everything, so can the christians.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1651063' date='Sep 8 2008, 11:43 PM']You can argue anything you want to. What matters is if you can back it up with evidence which I have. So far you have provided an argument with nothing to back it up. I have provided evidence for my case, and I am awaiting you to respond with some evidence to contradict what I showed. You can argue all night, but can you give evidence for it?[/quote]


i posted quotes from the early church first, that contradicts the CC's position, and you did not respond to them.

you posted stuff about peter taking a primary role, like "feed my sheep" etc. the strongest point you have is that he gave peter keys, but that could mean many things. (i'd argue "wha you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" is what keys means, and that everyone got them. i'd argue against your point that it was the church that binds and loses in that "if your brother sins against you verse" cause i think the context is clear that "you bind" means the person who was sinned against)
i'm not going to try to contradict "keys" with the latin etc, cause i've been there and done that, and all it comes down to is what keys mean, which is open to interpretation.
i realize i didn't respond to specific passages, but at least i responded to what i thought of your quotes in a way that says how i would tackle the issue.
all you responded to with my quotes was that they were "interesting"

any good scholar knows wikipedia is a good go to source first, but that it cannot be relied upon as a final word. it's a convenient source when you know it's true etc. if you want to check out it's validity, go to google and other sources, and get the consensus. which, you would find if you did on this issue, cause i have looked into it.
usually,,, when poeple bash wikipedia in the manner you did, it's just a way to dodge the issue.
you had no reason to doubt it, yet you claim it's bad just because it's wikipeida.

you're blinded by arrogance if you think that the CC must be true as a logical duduction in and of itself. the only way circular reasoning can be overcome is by faith in this area,,,, eg, "the cc is true because it says it's true", is just as bad as "the bible is true because it says it's true", or even "the bible is true bc the cc says it's true, and the cc is true cause the bible says it's true, and the cc is true bc it says it's true"
you shouldn't be acting that way. it's illogical, circular reasoning.

you have to argue the historical and other positions. i agree that you've argued the bible well, but i don't think it's definitive and have said why. so to me, it seems you're relying on something flimsy, allowing yourself to be taken in by circular reasoning.
(i can see merit to your argument if you think it's a definitive position, what you're arguing from the bible, and that you're not in circular reasoning,,, but since i disagree with the premise that it's a strong enough argument, to me it's circular reasoning)
(also,,, it might be circular that the bible is true because the church generally said it's true given that we don't know for sure when it's true etc, but that's just the way it is. it has just as much validity as saying it's true bc the CC is true given that that statemnet itself has just as much basis)
i can't believe i'm starting to get into petty christian debate 101 with you. i guess everyone has to start somewhere.

i'm waiting for you to respond to the early church stuff.

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also most of the books of the canon were generally recognized before the council that ratified it. that shows God working on it through the people generally.

i believe that there was one person a saint who had all the canon and only the canon, but i might be mistaken in that he might have been missing one book. the point though is that it was pretty much all there at the least.
i can verify this if you dispute it, historically.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's been said that the bible isn't that clear. and then going to the early church, makes it ten times as unclear.

usually it's protestants that argue that.
but if you think that's the case here, just let me know and we can agree to disagree.

that you're so adament about your position being necessarily right shows to me that you don't understand the argumetns very well. or, we have a different idea of what faith means, maybe.

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1651330' date='Sep 9 2008, 08:19 AM']any good scholar knows wikipedia is a good go to source first, but that it cannot be relied upon as a final word. it's a convenient source when you know it's true etc. if you want to check out it's validity, go to google and other sources, and get the consensus. which, you would find if you did on this issue, cause i have looked into it.
usually,,, when poeple bash wikipedia in the manner you did, it's just a way to dodge the issue.
you had no reason to doubt it, yet you claim it's bad just because it's wikipeida.[/quote]
What good scholars know this? What are there names? I myself use wikipedia, but am wary of it. If for no other reason than anyone can edit it. It is fluid--much more so than a book. I dispute it because it's written without any real controls--the opinion of the public at large is not a good control.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you shouldn't dismiss looking at it, just because it's wikipedia. just don't rely on it, and it can be a good starting point. it's a sound argument, so what scholar wouldn't follow that protocol?
but i'm not just arguing from reason.... talk to anyone who is sholarly and beyond the first impression point that many fall into of thinking it can't be looked at etc... and they will tell you the same thing.

but if someone outright dismisses it as not to be looked at etc, then there's an issue with that. i'm not saying anyone is saying that, but it could be implied jsut as much as anyone would be impying i'm saying it's a good source end of discusion. i agree it's not a definitive source.

one could argue i wasn't scholarly to cite it, but that he dismissed the argument just because it's wikipedia was what i had issue with. if he's not saying it can't ever be looked at, then he just evaded the issue... both of which are bad. (maybe he thought he din't want to waste his time with it, but that wasn't clear to me to be the case, and it can be looked into anyways so)

i'm not saying it's a final source, and i'm sure no one is saying it can't be looked at.... so i'm not sure if we're really disagreeing on anything else, or of substance.
just bickering, maybe.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Sep 9 2008, 08:19 AM' post='1651330']
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a101.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a101.htm[/url]

Part 1 of 3

First I will respond to the link. Then I will have a two other posts dealing with what you said as apparently there is a limit to the number of times you can use quote blocks!

This website cannot back itself up and falls into the typical Protestant problem. Passages in italics are from the article.

[i]"The canon is not ‘determined’ by the church or church leaders. The church did not give us the Bible. Rather, God gave the Bible to His people, the church, and not the other way around."[/i]

Where did we learn that the canon is not determined by the church? Who determines it? So since the Bible was not given to use by the Church, who gave it to us? God. Okay, did it fall down from heaven?

[i]Every book written by the inspiration of God is, by definition, canonical. It is canonical because it is the Word of God, not because of any human decision to regard it as such. Therefore the canon of the Scripture was completed when the last book of the New Testament was written, even though all Christians did not yet possess all the canonical books collected in one book."[/i]

How do we know that a book is the word of God? Do we guess? Roll dice? What is the last book of the New Testament? I have repeated this several times, why do we not have the Gospel of Thomas in our Bible? It's a book. How do know what is canon and what is not? Is there a place in the Bible that tells us what is canon and what is not?

[i]This ‘tradition’ has nothing to do with the concept of ‘Sacred Tradition' of the Roman Catholic Church. The ‘table of contents’ was not passed orally from one bishop to the other, until somebody decided to publish it! Rather, the books that were already regarded as Scripture by the churches were included in the list of canonical books- and passed on to us.[/i]

If you know anything about the early church, you would know that not everyone had the same lists. Again we have a problem as how do we know what is scripture and what is not. You, the article, and others, seem to believe everyone had the same lists and it all flew together.

[i]We are told that unless we rely on the decision of the infallible Church magisterium, we have no sure basis for knowing the extent of the canon. How can we be sure that the early Christians did not exclude an inspired book, or included a book that is not inspired?[/i]

Correct.

[i]It would be nice to have an infallible magisterium to declare infallibly the list of canonical books. Unfortunately, there are two big problems with this fantasy. First, historically it did not happen that way. Secondly, how can we know that the magisterium is infallible to start with?[/i]

Let's see, maybe Jesus passes his teaching authority, Apostolic Succession, Apostolic authority, wow this sounds familiar.

[i]From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken).[/i]

I disagree. You look at what the Church considered canon in the 300s you get the same books we have today.

[i] Yet for fifteen hundred years and more, Christians had built their life and hope on the teaching of those books, being fullF confident that they are the Word of God, even though there was no declaration by an infallible magisterium.[/i]

Christians built their life and hope on that the Catholic Church, through Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Authority, had the mission to teach the faith. I have gone through scripture that shows this authority and I think when the church declares what canon is, I think I can believe that without worrying about it being wrong.


[i]Today, Evangelicals continue to walk in the steps of their forefathers, having full assurance of the authenticity of the books of the Bible, apart from any ‘infallible’ declaration by a group of bishops.
[/i]

That's incorrect. They have no assurance of the authenticity of the books of the Bible because they do not recognize the teaching authority of the church.

[i]Similarly, the Jewish people recognized a corpus of books that they called 'sacred Scriptures' (the Old Testament). The Lord Jesus and His apostles reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures, implying of course that there was a canon that was not generally recognized. Yet, it is clear that the same Jews that recognized the canonical books were not themselves 'infallible.' Jesus does not attribute infallibility to the leaders whose forefathers had first acknowledged the books of the sacred Scriptures. As a matter of fact, they were mistaken on many issues of doctrine and morals, to the extent that they crucified the Messiah prophesied in the same Writings.[/i]

Well, the Catholic Church got the teaching authority. I guess the Jewish people did not. Remember that the Catholic Church did not exist in the OT so I don't know what is the point here.

[i]We can be confident that God has providentially worked in history so that we now possess in our hands the inspired writings. Moreover, we would be wise to follow Jesus and His apostles not to attribute infallibility to the church He used to that end.[/i]

"We can be confident..." Why? Why would it be wise to not follow a church that Jesus started and passed on his teaching authority?

[i]We thank God for giving us His Word in written form. Rather than waste our time arguing on the canon of the New Testament, about which Catholics and Protestants agree, we should move on to study these sacred books to learn God's will and to correct false doctrines that have crept into the churches.[/i]

How do we know what is from God? Who is going to decide on doctrine whether it is true or not and on what authority?

This article lacked evidence, and ignores a large part of the NT.

End of 1 of 3

Edited September 9, 2008 by eagle_eye222001

[eagle_eye222001]

part 2 of 3

Again, this post will be separated into two further parts due to reaching the max number of quote blocks.


[quote]the old testament church relied on the old testament scripture as infallible, long before the CC came along.
yet you act as if no one knew until the CC came along, or at any rate until the canon was ratified.
so you've yet to really respond to this point, cause if they can rely on scripture without being infallible in everything, so can the christians.[/quote]

I see what you are attempting to argue, however, the NT makes it very plain that Jesus passes on his teaching authority to the Catholic Church and there is a quote about those who do not follow the teaching on the Catholic Church can be considered to be teaching falsehood (1 Timothy 3:15, John 8:32, John 17:22-23, I would list these but they are already posted and ignored by you). The game plan changes when Jesus comes down. That is why you have the OT and NT.

[quote]i posted quotes from the early church first, that contradicts the CC's position, and you did not respond to them.[/quote]

Maybe because they were scattered thoughts that lacked punch. Did you back up any of those thoughts with anything substantial?

[quote]you posted stuff about peter taking a primary role, like "feed my sheep" etc. the strongest point you have is that he gave peter keys, but that could mean many things.[/quote]

Such as? The keys thing is fairly straightforward. You even have the passage in Isaiah to relate to. I think it is fairly obvious what is going on.

[quote](i'd argue "wha you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" is what keys means, and that everyone got them. i'd argue against your point that it was the church that binds and loses in that "if your brother sins against you verse" cause i think the context is clear that "you bind" means the person who was sinned against)[/quote]

So everyone gets to decide what Jesus meant and what faith and morals should be? We would have a billion different churches with a billion different set of morals and AGAIN you have to ignore large parts of the NT for this to work. Again you don't have anything to back up your version of what you think 'keys' and 'bind' deal with while I have LARGE portions of the NT to back up the keys and binding. If we follow your argument, I need to throw out several books like Martin Luther did.


[quote]i'm not going to try to contradict "keys" with the latin etc, cause i've been there and done that, and all it comes down to is what keys mean, which is open to interpretation.[/quote]

I have backed up my interpretation and I await yours.

[quote]i realize i didn't respond to specific passages, but at least i responded to what i thought of your quotes in a way that says how i would tackle the issue.[/quote]

Until you tackle the issue, you can't say anything about my argument. Find me passages in the Bible, that back up your version of keys binding and so forth, and let me know what they are and how they flow with the Bible as a whole.

I might say how one should win a ballgame, but until that strategy is executed, we don't know if it works or not.

End of Part 2 of 3

[eagle_eye222001]

Part 3 of 3

[quote]all you responded to with my quotes was that they were "interesting"[/quote]

Again, you bring a few quotes, no scripture, nothing. What am I supposed to say about them? That they are infallible?

[quote]any good scholar knows wikipedia is a good go to source first, but that it cannot be relied upon as a final word. it's a convenient source when you know it's true etc. if you want to check out it's validity, go to google and other sources, and get the consensus. which, you would find if you did on this issue, cause i have looked into it.[/quote]

You seem to know or believe in your version of what "keys" mean and I ask you to back it up and explain the sheep and shepherd references Jesus uses with Peter if Jesus was not starting the papacy.

[quote]usually,,, when poeple bash wikipedia in the manner you did, it's just a way to dodge the issue.
you had no reason to doubt it, yet you claim it's bad just because it's wikipeida.[/quote]

I have no reason to doubt it? Then why I can I not use it as a source for my term paper in college?


[quote]you're blinded by arrogance if you think that the CC must be true as a logical duduction in and of itself. the only way circular reasoning can be overcome is by faith in this area,,,, eg, "the cc is true because it says it's true", is just as bad as "the bible is true because it says it's true", or even "the bible is true bc the cc says it's true, and the cc is true cause the bible says it's true, and the cc is true bc it says it's true"
you shouldn't be acting that way. it's illogical, circular reasoning.[/quote]

What came first, the Church or the Bible? This is another can of worms but if I need to go into it I will. Answer that question first though.

[quote]you have to argue the historical and other positions. i agree that you've argued the bible well, but i don't think it's definitive and have said why. so to me, it seems you're relying on something flimsy, allowing yourself to be taken in by circular reasoning.
(i can see merit to your argument if you think it's a definitive position, what you're arguing from the bible, and that you're not in circular reasoning,,, but since i disagree with the premise that it's a strong enough argument, to me it's circular reasoning)
(also,,, it might be circular that the bible is true because the church generally said it's true given that we don't know for sure when it's true etc, but that's just the way it is. it has just as much validity as saying it's true bc the CC is true given that that statemnet itself has just as much basis)
i can't believe i'm starting to get into petty christian debate 101 with you. i guess everyone has to start somewhere.
i'm waiting for you to respond to the early church stuff.[/quote]

What early church stuff? The near random quotes you dug up that lack any scripture backing and are certainly not something the Church teaches? Maybe you should back those thoughts up first. Otherwise I might be responding to something void.


End of 3 of 3

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1651403' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:32 AM']you shouldn't dismiss looking at it, just because it's wikipedia. just don't rely on it, and it can be a good starting point. it's a sound argument, so what scholar wouldn't follow that protocol?
but i'm not just arguing from reason.... talk to anyone who is sholarly and beyond the first impression point that many fall into of thinking it can't be looked at etc... and they will tell you the same thing.

but if someone outright dismisses it as not to be looked at etc, then there's an issue with that. i'm not saying anyone is saying that, but it could be implied jsut as much as anyone would be impying i'm saying it's a good source end of discusion. i agree it's not a definitive source.

one could argue i wasn't scholarly to cite it, but that he dismissed the argument just because it's wikipedia was what i had issue with. if he's not saying it can't ever be looked at, then he just evaded the issue... both of which are bad. (maybe he thought he din't want to waste his time with it, but that wasn't clear to me to be the case, and it can be looked into anyways so)

i'm not saying it's a final source, and i'm sure no one is saying it can't be looked at.... so i'm not sure if we're really disagreeing on anything else, or of substance.
just bickering, maybe.[/quote]
So you can't really support your assertion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'll get back to the stuff from eagle when i have more time.

but,,, you haven't attacked the reasoning i gave for my prowikipeida comments, and you haven't cited anyone who'd ever say anything opposite. can you?

i've talked to scholarly people in real life etc. i will google it iin a little while and surely find the same thing.

almost surely, you don't think wikipedia is not something that can be read. so i'm not sure what you're point is.

in fact, that i said from the very beginning all the qualification that i did,,, makes your initial response to this subject off key: why would you say essentailly "i'm hesitant about wikipedia"? what does that even mean? do you not look at it at all? or at least dont even see what it might say when doing research? how absurd would that be if it were the case? can you found anyone who'd back that up?
everything i said, would lead one to think that i'm cautious etc, so i wonder why you ever even responded to begin with.

i'm not sure what your position exactly is,,, but if all your position is is that one should be hesitant about looking at it, then i'm sure you can find the source, but i don't know why you ever responded, if that were teh case.
if your position is more than that,,, then i doubt you can find the source that says anything that is opposed to what i said.

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's a court opinion that cites to it:
[url="http://michiganappeals.blogspot.com/2007/04/courts-citing-to-wikipedia.html"]http://michiganappeals.blogspot.com/2007/0...-wikipedia.html[/url]

i didn't even go so far as to cite to it,,, i was just sying check it out.
and then i qualified after that that one should always verify it.

and i never said to cite it. it's a leap page only as i said.


granted she's surely bias, but wikipedia evne says the same thing:
Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam."


someone who wrote a research paper on it: "Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[SpareTime]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1651323' date='Sep 9 2008, 06:57 AM']what you're saying at best is "i can find a way to contort what was said... and i assume that since you don't agree with me, that you don't know about it". in fact, i know how it's contorted by catholics, and can go further and argue why it probably is a distortion, not just a contortion.

take me up on the debate, and i'll show you who's uneducated[/quote]

When you make something up in your head and contribute it to another person, it's called slander or libel.

What I gather from your statement is that you're basically communicating to me that you believe you understand Catholic beliefs better than Catholics? Your opinion is that it is contorted, but it's only that, your OPINION. As for "good scholars going to wikipedia first"....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHHA.

Thanks for the belly laugh! Then again if you consider yourself a "good scholar" and yet don't even take the time to write in complete sentences and use proper grammar, the statement makes more sense. Now THAT is a contortion... of the phrase "good scholar".

[SpareTime]

I'm off to my theology professor's class now... maybe I will refer him to phatmass and this thread, as I'm sure he would get a laugh out of it too. Someone who has been here longer let me know that I should not bother debating with you, DG, so this shall be my last post on this! Goodbye!

[dairygirl4u2c]

if all you can make are ad hominems, ie, name calling type stuff instead of responding with reason, then you're no good in this debate anyway.

"i'm right cause i'm a catholic" yeah, what kind of position is that? maybe you might be expected to know more than me, but since you started out calling me uneducated, i know that that must be false, cause i know ten times time more than you on this subject.

you obviously lost in the substance of the debate.

so, i can see that get your jollies from self-congratulatory pre-school gloating (instead of using reason), that you lack the ability to engage in real intellectual debate, and that you're a coward.

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]My professor (who has a doctorate in theology) said that the church never ever ever ever said that abortion was "okay" as Nancy Pelosi implied when she said the church didn't always teach that it was homicide. The CHURCH has always declared that it is a MORTAL SIN to kill a child in the womb. And yeah I do believe that it really matters if a sin is mortal or not.[/quote]

also, just so you don't think i was avoiding you on the other issue.... this is all you said above.
this does not say how you know that it's a mortal sin. i asked you several times to give your source, but you never did.
if your teacher was your source, you didn't make that clear.
i gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was your teacher who said it, but it doesn't explain why we don't ban all mortal sins.
and i shouldn't have had to give you the benefit of the doubt.

from what i'm seeing, it's probably just that you have difficulty grasping basic concepts and questions.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1651519' date='Sep 9 2008, 02:11 PM']here's a court opinion that cites to it:
[url="http://michiganappeals.blogspot.com/2007/04/courts-citing-to-wikipedia.html"]http://michiganappeals.blogspot.com/2007/0...-wikipedia.html[/url]

i didn't even go so far as to cite to it,,, i was just sying check it out.
and then i qualified after that that one should always verify it.

and i never said to cite it. it's a leap page only as i said.


granted she's surely bias, but wikipedia evne says the same thing:
Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam."


someone who wrote a research paper on it: "Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”[/quote]
The first problem is the term "scholarly." You're tossing it about and it's rather vague. What qualifies? According to your actions, a court citing wikipedia (courts are able to cite anything they wish, and I don't recall any being famous for checking their sources), a "spokeswoman," and "someone who wrote a research paper."

Courts may very well cite wikipedia, but the articles are subject to change. I found no mention of wikipedia in the first link, and a single reference to it to provide support for a definition. This is used, apparently, by Stephen J. Markman. Where else is he published? Who is he? What are his credentials? How was this citation recieved?

Sandra Ordonez. Who is she? One of the "scholars" you know in real life?

Someone will no doubt get millions of hits from the source which is google.

The fact is, a [i]best[/i], wikipedia is a tertiary source (and I hold that it isn't, but will not pursue the argument). But you cited it part of your attack and in speaking of using it to confirm something you already know, you revealed a great deal of information about your process for uncovering the truth. It's simply not a valid source to cite in an argument of this type. If we were discussing the merits of the Backstreet Boys, then wiki away, but we are discussing history and so we need real sources, not an online encyclopedia amendable by every person on the planet with access to the internet.

You made a statement that I attacked and you have yet to refute it with anything substantial. Your terms are vague. I am, in doing this, trying to help you develop your abilities. Your technique is terrible. The eagle guy is mopping the floor with you, and you don't seem to notice it. You appear intellectually lazy, while making grandiose statements. Your grammar kneecaps your arguments, even when they begin to amount to something. I sometimes wonder if it's intentional. I sometimes see a good argument, but it's hobbled. Perhaps you lack discipline, perhaps you are spreading yourself too thin on the forums and so cannot commit yourself to any line of thought with consistency, but whatever the cause, it's hurting yours so I recommend a retreat and review of your approach to debate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the only thing i might be losing at is style, not substance.

"But you cited it part of your attack and in speaking of using it to confirm something you already know, you revealed a great deal of information about your process for uncovering the truth. It's simply not a valid source to cite in an argument of this type."

i said later and before you responded that it's only a leap page, a tertiary page as you now aptly put it. so at least between me and you, if anyone's being sloppy, "im weary of wikipedia", is pretty sloppy since we agreed all along on that subject.

so now i see that your point is simply that it's unscholarly, unseemly (i'd think anyway,,,,, i don't see how you'd argue there's more substantive things wrong with citing wikipeda in a fleeting internet debate when he can just say it's wrong or has reason to think it). to that i say, that this isn't a school paper or anything. this is a quasi formal but informal debate. that he simply dismissed it, shows that he was ignoring the issue. if he thinks the information is false or has reason to think it false, then that's all he has to say. he just ignored it because it's wikipedia.

we're not debating with dissertations.
my use of scholar doesn't matter-that a harvard scholar type doesn't cite wikipedia in his papers doens't have anything to do with this debate about wikipeia, irrelevant, to me (it was relevant when disucssing how scolarly people would use a teritary source cause i'm sure they do the same thing).. cause as i've always said, the reference i made was just that, a reference (in a non-disssweration debate). he can tell me the reasons he doesn't like the article if he doesn't when he examines it. not just flat out dismiss it offhand.
(what might be relevant is how scholar harvard types debate on the internet. i'm sure they vary, as i said, this isn't a dissertation etc. but, i wouldn't doubt if the know the inormation to be true that they'd cite it. i suppose i know it's true, but he doesn't, but again it goes back to the idea that he can verify it)

there should be no burden for me to cite super formal sources in a quasi informal debate like this.
if he's knowledgable about the article, he'd say yes it's true. if he's trying to refute the article, or my opinion on it,,,,, he'd also be seeing that it's true (or false) along the way in doing research to refute.
you must think there is a higher burden. that's all this really comes down to.
i only think you should require better sources in a formal debate. i simply cannot agree with the duty as you desire, with something as fleeting quasi informal internet debate.

again, it might look bad citing wikipedia, but that's all. he again did what's he's been doing all along- avoiding the harder issues. so again, the only thing i might be losing at is style, not substance.

Edited September 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c