“A protestant theologian with an axe to grind is hardly unbiased. Post from a LEGITIMATE secular source like the Encyclopedia Britannica, then get back to us.”
Do you really think ANY source is unbiased?
Without presuppositions?
Without closely held convictions.
Do you really think there is no value in seeing the other side of the argument from someone or group that is absolutely biased in the opposite direction of your own?
If so, I feel deeply for the loss of a mind that is stagnant and is closed to actual thought.
Verga, you claim to hold multiple masters degrees. Is your education only applicable to evaluating or analyzing approved Catholic sources? If so, it wasn’t worth the time you spent.
Thinking is apparently a lost art on the other side of the Tiber. And this from a group that used to have absolutely fantastic thinkers.
I seem to have the ability to read Catholic sources and evaluate them in the light of Scripture and history, but when I post a non-Catholic source, there’s a lot of bed-wetting because it is “biased.”
cc: SR and GZ - I’m pinging you because I know the depth of thought you bring to every topic you touch and the depth of your educations. I’ve seen it on thread after thread. You might like to see how little of that is happening around here anymore.
Seriously the encyclopedia is now an "approved Catholic source"?
Oh that's right the Vatican secretly controls them and gives them their marching orders along with the Masons and the Trilateral commission. (I hope I don't need to add the /SARC tag to that.)
The fact is that I chose to suggest the EB since it is a secular source and does not have an axe to grind for or against either Shaff or the Catholic Church.
That is what is called unbiased.
And after reading what others have said about your source I am completely justified.
Sound a lot like 'poisoning the well'. It is also rather eye-opening lack of reasoning to state in the same passage a demand for an "unbiased" source then demand it be a "secular source". By that very demand - secular - you have just made it biased. This is because as a view - secularism - already has its biases and world view. As already noted - if you don't like the view, then provde documentation why. To say a source is 'biased' without documenting is a lazy way out of the conversation. Prove why it is biased.