(July 26, 2014 at 6:08 am)Esquilax Wrote: Each claim can actually be approached on its own, and just because resurrections and virgin births are consistent with a worldview featuring magic, doesn't mean there is reasonable justification for bolting those claims onto the initial magic claim.

I'm not exactly in the business of defending the occurrence of the events in the New Testament.
I'm just saying that it would not be outright false for somebody to claim that a supernatural being caused supernatural events at one point in history. Of course, it wouldn't be necessarily true, either.

Quote:Given the actual words stated in the bible... yes, division was on Jesus' agenda.

What's going to happen is that I'm going to ask you for an instance where Jesus advocated for division (which is conveniently located earlier in this thread), and I'm going to tell you that Jesus was simply stating the inevitable things that happen when you adopt the teachings of a heretical Jewish rabbi.
But if you can provide an instance where Jesus said that he liked the fact that people hated each other on his account, or that he went out of his way to make someone angry in a manner that did not involve preaching, then you have a case.

Quote:So is the pope infallible or not? Your position seems to be that he turns it on and off like a tap, but how the hell does that work?

The pope is not infallible in all areas of life. He is only infallible in the area of declaring official church doctrine, which is a pretty good place to be infallible in if you represent Christ on earth.
For instance, your chess-playing skills could be average, but when it comes to flipping hamburgers, your the one everyone depends on because that is your territory.

And the reason he supposedly has this specialty for church doctrine is...the say so of the hierarchy. Yeah, no.

I wasn't defending papal infallibility, I was indicating that it didn't apply to Francis' stance on priest pedophilia.

(July 27, 2014 at 3:42 am)Purplundy Wrote: I wasn't defending papal infallibility, I was indicating that it didn't apply to Francis' stance on priest pedophilia.

What does that all mean? And why do you think so?

Whether the pope is infallible or not, the Catholic Church, according to its own rules, has never claimed Pope Francis to be infallible when dealing with pedophiles.

Horny, willing, hung, and able perhaps, but not infallible.

---

Ya'll keep settin' dem up, and I jes keep on a rollin' dem strikes !!!!

(July 27, 2014 at 3:43 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Horny, willing, hung, and able perhaps, but not infallible.

---

Ya'll keep settin' dem up, and I jes keep on a rollin' dem strikes !!!!

Ooh. Zing! He'll be here every day folks.

(July 27, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Purplundy Wrote: Whether the pope is infallible or not, the Catholic Church, according to its own rules, has never claimed Pope Francis to be infallible when dealing with pedophiles.

What a convenient escape hatch. He's only infallible on the subjects that OTHER people say he's infallible on. And the "Holy Spirit" doesn't have to say a thing.

BTW, I came across John again, and he had to replace his faded old "Catholics Cowards" sign with a snazzy new one! I also told him about this thread and gave him the link and he'll let me know when he checks it out. Take a look!



Also notice the rad glove he's rocking.

(July 29, 2014 at 7:04 pm)StealthySkeptic Wrote: What a convenient escape hatch. He's only infallible on the subjects that OTHER people say he's infallible on.

What?
The Catholic Church did not issue a proclamation that Pope Francis is fallible on social issues last year. That's been the rule for over a century.
And there isn't a list of "subjects" that the Pope is infallible on. The Pope can claim to be infallible on anything, but it has to be a statement, first of all, and there is a system that he has to go through.
And now you're saying that he has to defend his infallibility. If he wanted to defend it, he wouldn't use it. There isn't an escape hatch. If your argument even made sense, the Catholic Church would have backpedaled for miles by now.

That there might be logical inconsistencies and errors in how the Catholic hierarchy views and codifies infallibility comes as no particular surprise, if that is what you all are getting at.