Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Scott Windsor, distracted

It is entirely possible Scott Windsor, while typing out his latest comment to me, was watching a World Cup footsoccerball match and could not think clearly through the buzz of those insanity-inducing vuvuzelas from the crowd.  Had to be something, b/c his comment is a mess, as if he forgot where he was.  It's bizarre; I encourage you to read it for yourself.

Your asking ME a question is not YOU documenting YOUR case.

Oh, I get it - you're less interested in a substantial case made than you are in rapidity of reply.  You could stand to cultivate a bit of patience in your life.
Now, my question?

OK. Then that's my answer for those who ask for an infallible Canon of Scr from Sola Scriptura.
sw: That question has not been asked of you in this particular discussion.

???? That's the very question I explicitly identified as the challenge I'm responding to when I make these "you're in just as 'bad' shape as we are" arguments!  Someone's not paying attention...

That's #3 on my Top Ten List. The "you're in no better shape" argument does not defend YOUR position, it is an invalid red herring argument.

Yup, you're not paying attention.
The astute reader, who actually attempts to use his memory and fairly represent the other side, will recall that I entered this combox for the explicit and express purpose of disputing #3.  And now Mr Windsor crows: "Heh heh!  You violated #3!!!!"   Um, yes, I know that.  I think #3 is stupid.
What's really funny is that Windsor linked to the very same post in whose combox we're having this discussion!  Sir, may I suggest with the most kindness I possibly can - you are embarrassing yourself.  Pay attention, or don't comment.

1) Is it complete? (2)Not missing one single item?
sw: That's TWO questions.

Um, yes.  It sure is.

1) It doesn't claim to be, nor did I claim it was.

So it's not a fallible list of infallible doctrines of the RCC.
Even though before, I'd said:
Rhology: (The RCC can't provide) failing that, a fallible list of RCC's infallible teachings
and then you answered:
SW: There are PLENTY of fallible lists! Dr. Ott's book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma being one of the most notable!

sw: That's really #3, for those who can count.

Yes, that's right too!  2+1=3!  Gold star!

How do I know? Um, I just answered that, the TITLE tells us what it IS.

Oh, OK.  Well, my Bible says "The Holy Bible" on the title.  What?  You want an infallible canon?  Hey, get off my back!  I just answered that, the TITLE tells us what it IS.

The Canon which was defined is that of "The Old Latin Vulgate" - the canon used by St. Jerome. In the DEFINITION there is no silence.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong about that.
Next time, pay attention.  You'll get better work done.

(Please leave any comment at the Beggars All post.)