Replies

That's exactly what you said. That "Vicar of Christ" was a title of the Emperors.

Dave, I'm done with it. If you wish to put words in my mouth that I didn't say instead of dealing with the history, have at it. It is dishonest and peripheral and I'm not going to sit and pick knits with you instead of dealing with the central arguements. This has nothing to do with the central arguments and is a generalization - perhaps overgeneralization that is being sniped at for that very purpose, to distract. Which is why snipes are brought in in the first place - to ask a gazillion general questions, flood the thread with non answers and destroy the cohesion of the debate.

Havoc in post 929:

Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors.

That's exactly what you said. That "Vicar of Christ" was a title of the Emperors.

Dave, I'm done with it. If you wish to put words in my mouth that I didn't say instead of dealing with the history, have at it. It is dishonest and peripheral and I'm not going to sit and pick knits with you instead of dealing with the central arguements. This has nothing to do with the central arguments and is a generalization - perhaps overgeneralization that is being sniped at for that very purpose, to distract. Which is why snipes are brought in in the first place - to ask a gazillion general questions, flood the thread with non answers and destroy the cohesion of the debate.

Did I hallucinate post 929? Can anyone else see it? Is it a "generalization" to post your own words and ask you what you mean? Is it a "distraction" to wonder if the things you spout off have any meaning or relation to history?

Is it destructive to the "cohesion" of the debate to ask for backing and clarification for the nonsense you write?

Now, did post 929 mean something or was it just whatever words popped into your mind at athe time, with no relation to reality?

SD

Dave, I'm done with it. If you wish to put words in my mouth that I didn't say instead of dealing with the history, have at it.

post #929 in it's entirety:
Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome. And Pope is the title, not Bishop. Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors. In place of Christ = antichrist. Amazing how that works isn't it. Now, are you going to just continue sniping with soundbites and claims or are you going to eventually say something?

Then you would like to explain this statement of yours:

Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors.

If this title came from the Roman Emperors and not just from the official language of the Church, then how did the Roman Emperors come up with our modern legal concept of vicarious liability?

Which emperors, specifically, did the term Vicar of Christ come from and when did this happen. Can you give us any quotes or historical references?

And if this is just another of your divine pronouncements, where do you get the authority for it, that we should take your word above all else?

Havoc writes:

Which is why snipes are brought in in the first place - to ask a gazillion general questions, flood the thread with non answers and destroy the cohesion of the debate.

Snipes?

Uh, there were several specific assertions made by Havoc (and others as well) about various items on this thread. Several folks requested specific sources for the assertions made - assertions being represented as fact.

I can think of one that come to mind (among several). The first was that Pope was praying to Mary for his Salvation. A request for a link was requested. Ultimately, what was provided was (paraphrase) "I head it on a tape". No tape number. No tape transcript. No date.

Sorry, but that does not constitute a debate. If comments are being represented as fact, they should to be backed up. If one offers an opinion, that's different. But it is bad form to characterize requests for citations, in response to statements asserted as fact, as "destroy[ing] the cohesion of the debate"