Pope John Paul II...

[Shaker]

The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.

You'll be able to prove this assertion, right?

[Brownie]

I don't known what all the fuss is about, Catholics knew about the friendship between Pope John Paul ll and  Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka 20-25 years back (even I did and I go around not noticing things most of the time), and thought it was 'lovely'.  He mentioned it in one of his books, can't remember which one and I don't think he mentioned her by name.  What is new is the publication of some of the correspondence between the two which appears to be quite touching but not a big deal.  It's normal and healthy for two people of opposite sex to have a close, longstanding friendship; for JPll, who must have been fairly isolated a lot of the time, from choice of course but still difficult for a naturally gregarious person, it must have been extremely rewarding.
Edit: I re-read the op and note that Siriam was not making a big deal out of this and said he thought it was heartwarming.  I concur.

[ad_orientem]

You'll be able to prove this assertion, right?

Can you prove your assertion?

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you prove your assertion?

Oh don't be daft AO - that could go on for ever.

You made an unsubstantiated assertion, namely that 'The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.' You were asked to prove your assertion, not an unreasonable request.

So either provide some evidence to back up your claim, or accept it to be unevidenced handwaving, or merely your personal opinion.

[Shaker]

Can you prove your assertion?

Which is what?

[ad_orientem]

Oh don't be daft AO - that could go on for ever.

You made an unsubstantiated assertion, namely that 'The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.' You were asked to prove your assertion, not an unreasonable request.

So either provide some evidence to back up your claim, or accept it to be unevidenced handwaving, or merely your personal opinion.

The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.

[Shaker]

The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.

The words are just bald assertions of the same kind you're so fond of, with nothing to corroborate them. Testimony of the church is merely built on said assertions so is equally an evidence-free zone.

[ad_orientem]

Then so are your opinions and those of other unbelievers on these matters.

[ProfessorDavey]

The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.

No it isn't - you are merely using further unsubstantiated assertions in an attempt to justify your unsubstantiated assertion.

We understand this to be your belief, in effect your personal opinion, but that isn't proof any more than the opinions of atheists.

So come on then AO let's have some proper evidence please.

[Gordon]

The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.

That sounds like an uncompromising argument from authority.

[ad_orientem]

No it isn't - you are merely using further unsubstantiated assertions in an attempt to justify your unsubstantiated assertion.

We understand this to be your belief, in effect your personal opinion, but that isn't proof any more than the opinions of atheists.

So come on then AO let's have some proper evidence please.

Our Lord himself said that thr Psalms were written by David and we know that from the earliest of times that the epistle to the Hebrews was known to have been written by St. Paul, as Clement of Alexandria tell us. This we know through the Holy Spirit. The unbeliever is ignorant of these things.

[Shaker]

The more you write the clearer it becomes that you base everything on one kind of fallacy or another - antiquity; authority; No True Scotsman, you name it. About the only one I haven't seen you use is the negative proof, although Hope has exclusive rights to that one it seems.

[ProfessorDavey]

Our Lord himself said that thr Psalms were written by David and we know that from the earliest of times that the epistle to the Hebrews was known to have been written by St. Paul, as Clement of Alexandria tell us. This we know through the Holy Spirit. The unbeliever is ignorant of these things.

Step by step:

1. Firstly we have no evidence that 'Our Lord' actually exists so that's a pretty poor start.

2. Even if we assume (no proof merely an assumption) that there is a god we have no actual evidence what he said, merely what men have claimed (without evidence - see also point 1).

3. Just because some men might have claimed that god said that 'thr[sic] Psalms were written by David' that is no evidence that that claim is true and most proper scholars reject that claim.

4. We have no non partial independent verification of who wrote what in the bible in most cases. There is no credible evidence that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul and most of the evidence (style, content etc) suggests it wasn't.

5. We have no evidence that the 'Holy Spirit' exists so relying on a non proven entity so justify claims is a pretty poor end. And you can then start again at number 1.

So no evidence whatsoever.

[ad_orientem]

The more you write the clearer it becomes that you base everything on one kind of fallacy or another - antiquity; authority; No True Scotsman, you name it. About the only one I haven't seen you use is the negative proof, although Hope has exclusive rights to that one it seems.

Ah, I see! The double standards of the atheists.

[Shaker]

Ah, I see! The double standards of the atheists.

What double standards?

[ad_orientem]

Step by step:

1. Firstly we have no evidence that 'Our Lord' actually exists so that's a pretty poor start.

2. Even if we assume (no proof merely an assumption) that there is a god we have no actual evidence what he said, merely what men have claimed (without evidence - see also point 1).

3. Just because some men might have claimed that god said that 'thr[sic] Psalms were written by David' that is no evidence that that claim is true and most proper scholars reject that claim.

4. We have no non partial independent verification of who wrote what in the bible.

5. We have no evidence that the 'Holy Spirit' exists so relying on a non proven entity so justify claims is a pretty poor end. And you can then start again at number 1.

So no evidence whatsoever.

If that's the case then you have none whatsoever either when you say "He didn't write it" as fact. Given the choice of authority, that is between one that existed when the Apostles were still alive and an upstart 2000 years later, I'll choose the former everytime. The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs. Alas, even "if one rise again from the dead" that would not be enough proof.

[Shaker]

If that's the case then you have none whatsoever either when you say "He didn't write it" as fact. Given the choice of authority, that is between one that existed when the Apostles were still alive and an upstart 2000 years later, I'll choose the former everytime.

How about no authority at all, and thinking things out for yourself?

The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs.

It isn't proof of any kind at all in any way whatever.

[ProfessorDavey]

If that's the case then you have none whatsoever either when you say "He didn't write it" as fact. Given the choice of authority, that is between one that existed when the Apostles were still alive and an upstart 2000 years later, I'll choose the former everytime. The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs. Alas, even "if one rise again from the dead" that would not be enough proof.

I'm not making the assertion so the onus isn't on me to provide proof.

But ask proper scholars and there is a pretty clear consensus that Paul isn't the author of the epistle to the Hebrews and that David isn't the author of the psalms. Who is the author is of course much less clear, as is the case for most of the bible.

'The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs.' - oh no, more hand waving assertions. You need to 'prove' that the Holy Spirit exists before you can use the 'life' of this unproven entity as proof of anything else.

You really aren't very good at constructing logical arguments are you AO.

[floo]

I hav aleady givn you the evidence, both from the scriptures and the continuous practice of the Church. Both agree and prove beyond doubt that the priesthood was instituted by Christ. David wrote the Psalm and was speaking of Christ, as our Lord confirms in the Gospel. The epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle as prayer of the Church confirms. Lex orandi lex credendi!

That is NOT evidence!

[ProfessorDavey]

That is NOT evidence!

He really doesn't get it does he.

[ad_orientem]

An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church. Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.

[floo]

An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church. Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.

Divine logic!

[Shaker]

A perfect contradictio in adjecto if ever there was one.

[Nearly Sane]

Divine logic!

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Kwh_yOzJ6AY

[Shaker]

An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church.

That's the Poisoning the Well fallacy, I believe. Ad hominem too.

Have you ever tried putting fingers to keyboard and composing a post that isn't riddled with logical fallacies?