Answering John C. Wright's lies

Discussion in 'KKK - Public' started by Thalmoses, Jun 14, 2017.

  1. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    You might think so, but no. This didn't make it into my original two part
    quote, but was there before I pruned it down. Looking at it again, it is
    10,000 characters in its own right. I omitted it because this was about John
    C Wright lying about the contents of Scripture, not about Catholicism. But
    since we've gone there...

    Quote from Sungenis, part 3:

    Wright: As Roman Catholic, I am not bound to affirm that every non-scholarly
    flatfooted literal reading in translation of every passage of the Bible, taken
    out of context, means what the non-scholar says.

    Sungenis: And it is precisely the modern Roman Catholics like Mr. Wright who
    are the most guilty of ignoring the Church’s tradition and its literal
    interpretation of Scripture, quite unlike the traditional Roman Catholics who
    died as martyrs rather than read Scripture non-literally. The literal reading
    of Scripture is the very reason that Roman Catholicism believes in such things
    as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, since our forefathers weren’t
    afraid to take Matthew 26:26 very literally (“This is my body. Take and eat”).

    So let’s give Mr. Wright a Catholic education. The fact is, according to
    Catholic doctrine, Mr. Wright is bound to accept all Scripture as inspired by
    God and to be interpreted literally, unless there is a good and sufficient
    reason not to do so (see Providentissimus Deus below by Pope Leo XIII). But I
    can assure you that after reading his attempt at scientific investigation, Mr.
    Wright provides no such sufficient reason. In fact, he will make us go the
    other way.

    Like most modern Catholics, Mr. Wright is under the false impression that he
    can, willy-nilly, eliminate any literal reading of the Bible he desires if
    modern scientists say something to the contrary. Wrong. Bible interpretation
    must be literal unless it can be proven, scientific or otherwise, that a
    literal interpretation is not possible; and that we must look to the consensus
    of the Fathers when we make our interpretations. Let’s look at the teaching:

    In 1965, Vatican Council II reiterated the Church’s teaching on the authority
    of the Fathers:

    Of course, Mr. Wright tries to justify his ignoring of the literal
    interpretation by his usual demonization, namely, “every non-scholarly
    flatfooted literal reading.” Notice the term “flatfooted.” The dictionary
    defines it as follows:

    flat·foot·ed

    ADJECTIVE

    1. having flatfeet.
    2. taking or showing an uncompromising stand in a matter; firm and explicit: a
    flatfooted denial.
    3. clumsy or plodding; maladroit: flatfooted writing.
    4. catch one flatfooted to catch one unprepared; surprise: The amount of the
    bill caught us flatfooted.

    In other words, if Mr. Wright does not personally agree with a particular
    literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., that plants came before the sun) he
    calls it “flat-footed” and “non-scholarly.” It means that Mr. Wright has bought
    into modern atheistic science’s belief that the universe came into existence by
    a Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago, which is typical of most modern
    Catholics. But they believe such nonsense without the slightest evidence, much
    less proof.

    In the end, whatever modern science says it believes, Mr. Wright takes this as
    positive proof against whatever the Bible says, ipso facto. Interestingly
    enough, science is supposed to be about empirical proof, but the Big Bangers
    and the evolutionists admit they have no proof. As Richard Lewontin candidly
    admitted:

    So the “science” that Mr. Wright believes in is not really science; rather, it
    is a philosophical presupposition disguised as science.
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
  2. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    No, "Gamma plus success" describes pretty much all of his behavior.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Apercus

    Apercus Benefactor of Humanity Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    595
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Rod Dreher is such a dope; he's friends with a guy who writes books on how to use demons to attack people.
     
  4. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    I'm sure this is mostly irrelevant, but... I've heard that the "unicorn" is actually the rhinoceros. What reasons do you have for believing these are not one and the same?
     
  5. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Because the case for unicorn == aurochs sounds much stronger to me.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  6. glosoli

    glosoli Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    685
    Thanks Received:
    302
    • Thank Thank x 1
  7. glosoli

    glosoli Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    685
    Thanks Received:
    302
    Did I just see you parked in a car outside my house?
     
  8. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    He made a good defense of the rhinocerous, but he completely ignored the whole aurochs story. His last paragraphs in particular where he dismissed "wild ox" showed the problem.

    His one good argument for rhinocerous is that sometimes it seems the unicorn has one horn, other times two horns. To say if his argument stands or falls, I'd have to go back to the Tetrapla and check the original texts. If you google for it, it shows up on the 2nd page search results. Looks like Google hasn't entirely memory-holed me, just bumped me down. Tetrapla: The Bible in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (Sun Apr 26 16:35:06 2009) | http://loveandtruth.net/tetrapla.html

    The Aurochs was a real and documented animal. Other than one verse that seems to imply the unicorn only had one horn (which I must look into) the auruchs seems much more likely, given the time and terrain.
     
  9. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    A preliminary scan has these results:

    In Latin, unicorn is "rhinocerous" every time except 3. "unicorn" is used twice, and monoceratops is used once.

    In Hebrew, the word rem, resh-alef-mem is used most of the time, but there are at least 2 instances where it didn't look like the word resh-alef-mem was being used.

    I need to go back and correlate the findings, and look up the mystery Hebrew words in an Interlinear.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
  10. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    • Thank Thank x 1

Share This Page