Posted on 06/28/2008 3:25:43 PM PDT by NYer
LOL
ROFLMTO
You're not a lawyer, are you?
Do you suppose you could give us a good debate using intelligent sources or even just your own thoughts instead of a hit and run.
Did you read the article? It doesn’t sound like you did but I bet if you wanted to do a point by point defense of your position, I bet people would read it.
“Copyright protection, unlike patent protection, is automatic. As soon as the work is fixed in a tangible form it is protected under copyright law. You do not have to place a copyright notice on a work for it to be protected; however, it is advisable to include a copyright notice, because it tells others to whom the work belongs.
The author of the work is automatically the owner of all copyrights in the work unless the work was created in conjunction with the author’s employment. If the work is employment related, the employer owns the work in accordance with the work-made-for-hire doctrine in U.S. Copyright Law. (Refer to UC and Employee-Owned Copyrights for information on ownership of copyrights at the University of California.).”
http://www.ucsc.edu/matman/BusCon/copyrightgeneral.htm
If a person claims a church wrote the Bible, then he is claiming they have a claim to copyright.
“All told, the sad fact, which is testified to both doctrinally and empirically, is that there is seldom found salvation within Rome”
It sounds more like an impersonation of God, actually a usurpation of God’s power of judgement. It might make a great quip “I’m not God but I play Him on the internet.”
I have numerous Cathechisms, and the works or Trent, V-1 and V-2 etc. And what i have posted is not shown to be based upon misunderstanding R.C. doctrine, either officially or what she effectually is shown to popularly convey, which is also representative of what she really believes (faith without works is dead).
Again I ask, are you a lawyer?
Rather than attacking the use of the term “sola ecclesia,” what you should be doing is demonstrating how that Rome. In essence, is not claiming she is the ultimate earthly authority, but is she logically subservient to that which she claims singular authority to defines and interpret.
Which?
Rome is a city in Italy. I am not aware—or concerned—with what an Italian municipality claims.
Did you grow up speaking English? Are you an individual or a group of people posting under one account?
Do you suppose that was a Freudian slip? Or an admission?
In an odd way, it is both.
“Again I ask, are you a lawyer?”
No (are you?), but i do do research. Now go prove that authorship of a written work is not normally considered the copyright holder, unless declared otherwise or not renewed.
Here is more
“In the past, works published without a copyright notice were considered to be in the public domain. This is no longer true. At the international forum on copyright known as the Berne Convention of 1978, it was decided that copyright protection would accrue automatically when a work was created and notices are no longer mandatory.”
Good news! The KJV Bible are public domain (in the US).
You say lack of reading comprehension, I say error caused by trying to fit the Word of God to the beliefs that you already hold.
Thank you for answering the question. As to your return question, the answer is yes.
Now go prove that authorship of a written work is not normally considered the copyright holder, unless declared otherwise or not renewed.
That's not the question. You said there was a "copyright contention." You can prove you know what that is by quoting it, or you can retreat and fight another day.
“And all the Popes. CErtainly you are not going to claim all of them were infallible; are you? Not one of them is righteous or perfect”
Get back with me when you have a grasp on the Catholic meaning of infallibility. You would then realize who is infallible.
“what i have posted is not shown to be based upon misunderstanding R.C. doctrine”
Your posts prove otherwise.
“either officially or what she effectually is shown to popularly convey”
The Cathechism explains the Catholic belief system. There is no 1,000 interpretations.
“which is also representative of what she really believes (faith without works is dead).”
You don’t understand the Catholic Church.
Wow.
I'm guessing your non-answer answer is an admission that sola ecclesia is not a Catholic term, but rather some kind of epithet.
P.S.: sola ecclesia does not drive me crazy. Quite to the contrary, it makes me laugh. At you.
I may have to go for that one, it says it has large print, I’ve noticed lately that reading my Bible has become more difficult due to the fact that I often can’t see the words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.