The Church is responsible for over population in the Phils.

[bisaya70]

---

unsa man ni oi, bata batuta man nis bai benig,Â*
i bet he loves to hear himself talkÂ* :mrgreen:


too narrow minded, makes himself look like an idiot, tagai ni ug tsupon oi ......no offense

[mannyamador]

So does that mean you advocate being closed-minded?

It means you don't know what being open-minded is.

And this is why you can't seem to get over your ignorance and prejudice.

And that's why the Church continues to educate while you can't even keep from using logical fallacies.

By the way, surely you can come up with some way to substantiate your "bozo" charge. Unless, of course, that was a "bozo" work.

Tsk, tsk...

[benign0]

So does that mean you advocate being closed-minded?

It means you don't know what being open-minded is.

Your definition being?

You're so good at telling us what we don't know. Why not tell us what you do know.

And this is why you can't seem to get over your ignorance and prejudice.

And that's why the Church continues to educate while you can't even keep from using logical fallacies.

What can be more fallacious than basing the authority of the Church to speak for The Man on a document that endorses its own authors as de facto officials of the very same church that is underpinned by said document.

Can you see the circular argument above. Or are you in denial of the very fallaciousness of this argument of yours?

By the way, surely you can come up with some way to substantiate your "bozo" charge. Unless, of course, that was a "bozo" work.

Tsk, tsk...

I don't have to. If you presume to represent the voice of "reason" as far as the pre-eminence of Church dogma over everything else, then I've already proven my point. :P



And by the way, you haven't commented on my view of what Jesus would have asked if he were alive today and meeting the pope and cardinals for the first time.

To refresh your memory here is what I think he might say:

"Dudes, what's with the outfit and big houses"?


As the old knight told Indiana Jones when he selected the humblest cup from among the golden chalices:

"You have chosen wisely..."







-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!
[img width=150 height=68]http://www.getrealphilippines.com/images/begto.gif[/img]

[mannyamador]

  

	

		

			

			
				
				
   

	

		

			

			
				
				
So does that mean you advocate being closed-minded?
			
		
	
     It means you don't know what being open-minded is.
			
		
	

Your definition being?

Well, it DOESN'T mean acepting every idea as valid until proven wrong, that's for sure.

What can be more fallacious than basing the authority of the Church to speak for The Man on a document that endorses its own authors as de facto officials of the very same church that is underpinned by said document.

You obviously didn;'t even understand the logic of the argument. But then It seems more likely that you're just deliberately twisting it around to make it weaker. That's another logical fallcacy you're committing: a STRAW MAN argument.

Strike three!

By the way, surely you can come up with some way to substantiate your "bozo" charge. Unless, of course, that was a "bozo" work.
Tsk, tsk...

I don't have to.

There you go again: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

By the way, you've also contradicted yourself. You stated in an earlier message that you never said you didn't have substantiate your charges. But now you say you don't have to. So which is it (as if we'll get a straight answer!)?

You really should try to brush up on your logic. It would make you look less "bozoish".

[benign0]

Well, it DOESN'T mean acepting every idea as valid until proven wrong, that's for sure.

I am not asking you to accept my idea. I'm only challenging you to prove it wrong.

Big difference, dude. :P

You obviously didn;'t even understand the logic of the argument. But then It seems more likely that you're just deliberately twisting it around to make it weaker. That's another logical fallcacy you're committing: a STRAW MAN argument.

That's your perception, dude. Maybe it only looks all twisted because your little mind consistently fails to grasp it.

Strike three!

I get the feeling that circular arguments are a personal favourite of yours -- being both a player and an umpire.

Don't look now, but using "straw men" is a favourite style of your pal Mr. "jeepney going to Lapu Lapu" bisaya70.

Careful, careful.

There you go again: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Guess again.

By the way, you've also contradicted yourself. You stated in an earlier message that you never said you didn't have substantiate your charges. But now you say you don't have to. So which is it (as if we'll get a straight answer!)?

Here it is:

I've made some assertions.
You disagree.
Tell us why you disagree.

Simple to most. But obviously not to you. :P

You really should try to brush up on your logic. It would make you look less "bozoish".

And maybe you should rely less on your textbooks and Google. It would make you less schoolboyish.






-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

I am not asking you to accept my idea. I'm only challenging you to prove it wrong.

I know. And that's the error. You have to prove it RIGHT for it to be right. No one has to prove it wrong. As I said: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

That's your perception, dude. Maybe it only looks all twisted because your little mind consistently fails to grasp it.

You still don't get it eh? Oh well...

I've made some assertions.
You disagree.
Tell us why you disagree.

Wrong again. I asked you to substantiate your accusations. You failed miserably. Then you try to salvage your flagging position by claiming you don't have to! An irrational idea, to say the least. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Simple to most? Hehehe... These "most" haven't been agreeing with you. First you claim that you don't have to substantiate them, but merely assert them to be true. A clear case of argumentum ad ignorantiam:

• Tough luck, dude. I hereby assert them to be true until you prove them false.

Then you squirm around and try to "restate" your position:

• I never said that I "did not have to" substantiate my argument, dude. I said that I "hereby consider them true until you prove them false".

The you turn around again and say:

• I don't have to. If you presume to represent the voice of "reason" as far as the pre-eminence of Church dogma over everything else, then I've already proven my point.

When you stop contradicting yourself while running around like a headless chicken, let us know.

Hey guys, maybe we ought to make fewer replies (or maybe none at all, depending) to someone who has, BY HIS OWN LOGIC, proven himself to be a liar, thief, and child molester. You can't really have a rational debate with someone who insists on being IRRATIONAL.

[benign0]

I am not asking you to accept my idea. I'm only challenging you to prove it wrong.

I know. And that's the error. You have to prove it RIGHT for it to be right. No one has to prove it wrong. As I said: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

That's your perception, dude. Maybe it only looks all twisted because your little mind consistently fails to grasp it.

You still don't get it eh? Oh well...

I've made some assertions.
You disagree.
Tell us why you disagree.

Wrong again. I asked you to substantiate your accusations. You failed miserably. Then you try to salvage your flagging position by claiming you don't have to! An irrational idea, to say the least. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Simple to most? Hehehe... These "most" haven't been agreeing with you. First you claim that you don't have to substantiate them, but merely assert them to be true. A clear case of argumentum ad ignorantiam:

• Tough luck, dude. I hereby assert them to be true until you prove them false.

Then you squirm around and try to "restate" your position:

• I never said that I "did not have to" substantiate my argument, dude. I said that I "hereby consider them true until you prove them false".

The you turn around again and say:

• I don't have to. If you presume to represent the voice of "reason" as far as the pre-eminence of Church dogma over everything else, then I've already proven my point.

When you stop contradicting yourself while running around like a headless chicken, let us know.

Hey guys, maybe we ought to make fewer replies (or maybe none at all, depending) to someone who has, BY HIS OWN LOGIC, proven himself to be a liar, thief, and child molester. You can't really have a rational debate with someone who insists on being IRRATIONAL.

Suit yourself dude.

Hope you don't mind if I keep posting my two cents though. You're more than welcome to comment on them.



The fact of the matter is this:

The basis of your perceived truths are built on nothing more than a bunch of texts that rests on a doctrine of "infallibility".

So much for logic.

As I said before, the only one around here running around with circular arguments is you.


Who are these "guys" you are calling on? Your pal bisaya70?



-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

Full text of "Proving Inspiration". The relevant sections discussed in this thread is in RED.

Proving Inspiration
(http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp)

The Protestant Reformers said that the Bible is the sole authoritative
source of religious truth, whose proper understanding must be found by
looking only at the words of the text itself. This is the Protestant
teaching of sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone). According to this
teaching, no outside authority may mandate an interpretation, because no
outside authority, such as the Church, has been established by Christ as
an arbiter to determine which of the conflicting interpretations is
correct.

There is perhaps no greater frustration in dealing with Evangelical and
Fundamentalist Protestants, than in trying to pin them down on why the
Bible should be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone the sole rule.
It reduces to the question of why Fundamentalists accept the Bible as
inspired, since the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it is
first held to be inspired and, thus, inerrant.

Now, this is a problem that doesn't keep many nominal Christians awake
at night. Most have never even given it any serious thought. To the extent
that they believe in the Bible, they do so because they operate in a
milieu that is, if post-Christian in many ways, still steeped in Christian
presuppositions and ways of thought.

A lukewarm Christian who would not give the slightest credence to the
Koran would think twice about casting aspersions on the Bible. It has a
certain official status for him, even if he cannot explain why. You might
say that he accepts the Bible as inspired (whatever that may mean to him)
for some "cultural" reason, but that is hardly an adequate reason, since
on such a basis that would mean the Koran rightly would be considered
inspired in a Muslim country.

"It Inspires Me"

Some Fundamentalists say they believe the Bible is inspired because it is
"inspirational," but that is an ambiguous term. On the one hand, if used
in the strict theological sense, it clearly begs the question, which is:
How do we know the Bible is inspired, that is, "written" by God, using
human authors as instruments?

But if "inspirational" means nothing more than "inspiring" or "moving,"
then someone might decide that the works of Shakespeare are inspired.
Furthermore, parts of the Bible, including several whole books of the Old
Testament, cannot at all be called "inspirational" in this sense. One
bears no disrespect in admitting that some parts of the Bible are as dry
as military statistics -- indeed, some parts are military statistics --
and offer little to move the emotions.

Witness of the Bible

What about the Bible's own claim to inspiration? There are not many
places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the
Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New
Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the
direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of
Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, "The following
is an inspired book," this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures
can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of
inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fides.

These tests failing, most Fundamentalists fall back on the notion that
"the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is inspired," an exercise in
subjectivism akin to their claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in
interpreting the text. For example, the anonymous author of <How Can I
Understand the Bible?>, a booklet distributed by the Evangelical
organization "Radio Bible Class," lists twelve rules for Bible study. The
first is, "Seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to
illumine the scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them.
Yield to his enlightenment."

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation
will receive one from God -- that is exactly how many Fundamentalists
understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work -- then the
multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give
people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job
very well.

No Rational Basis

Most Fundamentalists do not say in so many words that the Holy Spirit has
spoken to them directly to assure them of the inspiration of the Bible.
Rather, in reading the Bible they say that they are "convicted" that it is
the word of God, they get a positive "feeling" that it is inspired, and
that's that. But this reduces their acceptance of the Bible to the
influence of their culture, habit, or any number of other emotional or
psychological factors.

No matter how it is examined, the Fundamentalist position is not one that
is rigorously reasoned out. It is a rare Fundamentalist who, even for sake
of argument, first approaches the Bible as though it is not inspired and
then later, upon reading it, syllogistically concludes that it must be. In
fact, Fundamentalists begin with the fact of inspiration -- just as they
take the other doctrines of Fundamentalism as premises, not as
conclusions -- and then they find passages in the Bible that seem to
support inspiration. They finally "conclude," with obviously circular
reasoning, that the Bible confirms its inspiration, which they knew all
along.

The man who wrestles with the Fundamentalist approach to inspiration is
eventually unsatisfied, because he knows that the Fundamentalist has no
sound basis for his belief. So where does one find a reasonable proof for
the inspiration of Scripture? Look no further than the Catholic Church.
Ultimately, the Catholic position is the only one that proves conclusively
the divine inspiration of Scripture, the only one that can satisfy a
person intellectually.

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible
is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first,
presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude
that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the
accuracy of any other ancient work.

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the
works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long
after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this
respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now
possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other
classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the
earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is
about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides
1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the
works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have
parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries,
only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for
classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from
which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just
a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew,
Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can
be sure we have an accurate text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history,
tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more
specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of
Jesus's life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical
writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human
nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of
divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to
be -- or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could no been was merely
a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make
the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just
from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many
critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did
not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then
proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the
resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a
friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a
hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if
Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths
affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this
line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the
dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself -- including his
claim to be God -- gave credibility. He meant what he said and did what
he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken
as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient
works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the
rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today -- papacy,
hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a
consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ's Church, to do what he
said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church
exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against
teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the
Church's word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only
after having been told by a properly constituted authority that is,
one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of
faith -- that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it
as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the
inspiration of the Bible on the Church's infallibility and the
Church's infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed
would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On
the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is
history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And
then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is
inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion
(the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding
(the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible
is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the
Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the
existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is
inspired.

Inadequate Reasons

The point is that Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible
to be inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate. In
reality this conviction can be based only on an authority established by
God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.

And this is where a more serious problem comes to light. It seems to some
that it makes little difference why one believes in the Bible's
inspiration, just so long as one believes in it. But the basis for one's
belief in its inspiration directly affects how one proceeds to interpret
the Bible. The Catholic believes in inspiration because, to put it
bluntly, the Church tells him so and that same Church has the authority to
interpret the inspired text. Fundamentalists believe in inspiration,
though on weak grounds, but they have no interpreting authority other than
themselves.

Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published
in 1884: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are
addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a
formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is
antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so
unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times,
and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some
authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret
itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its
interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what
is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what
is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is
grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of
temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural
anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the
last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the
text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its
complement the gift of infallibility."

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is
really proved, not just "felt." Second, the main fact behind the proof --
the reality of an infallible, teaching Church -- leads one naturally to an
answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31):
How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that
authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority
established by Christ to interpret his word.

[pie]

What do you think? Do you think it's time to rally in front of the church?

what the instituion implyng is that we shoul be more responsible of our acts. specially in a society where *** education is introduced. the more people will feed students with information about *** tendency is they will get curious bout it. so now, who's to blame CHURCH or SCHOOLS?

[benign0]

(Copied and pasted by mannyamador)

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the
inspiration of the Bible on the Church's infallibility and the
Church's infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed
would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On
the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is
history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And
then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is
inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion
(the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding
(the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible
is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the
Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the
existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is
inspired.

Let's focus on this particular line:

"On
the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is
history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded."

So tell me, dude: how does one go from saying that the Bible "is history" to suddenly concluding that on its basis was founded a church that is infallible.

Churches are founded from scripture everyday. But to conclude that in the special case of the Catholic Church we get one that is infallible. Where is the logic there? What is the basis of this infallibility conclusion?

And check this out again:

(Copied and pasted by mannyamador)

Many
critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did
not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then
proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the
resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a
friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a
hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit.

The argument here is whether or not Jesus's resurrection was a hoax. The point of controversy is whether or not the church built by his disciples is in fact vested with the authority to speak for the Man.

And the first excerpt above shows how a yawning logical gap exists between the fact of Scripture and the tenet of infallibility.


But then ignorant and impoverished people will probably overlook that anyway.





-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!