"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
the "English" assembly instructions for my stereo cabinet.
>
> My point exactly. If the pope is supposed to be infallible, it is only because
> god is. God got it wrong, ergo, he's not infallible, or else the bible is not
> His Word. Pick one.
Actually, the Pope infallibility thing was declared by a Pope (forgot
the name offhand) in the late 19th century. The nasty problem of
whether popes were infallible before that and just didn't let on was
swept under the rug. Also the pope gave himself and future popes an out
in that they are supposedly only infallible when speaking 'ex
cathedra', which means something like in their most popish popishness or
pope as pope as infallible pope. But supposedly they do have to say
when they are in this mode so people can know they are getting the
straight poop from the pope as pope. Literally though it means "in the
exercise of one's office with authority". So I don't know when a pope is
not a pope. I guess when he is just so-and-so strolling around wearing
pope gear but not really presiding over some popish going on or other?
Some semi-illterate temple hanger-on measured the thing all this
argument has been about and declared it so and so amount. That it is in
the bible, even if you accepted for a moment that was an infallible book
(which it obviously isn't and really shouldn't be), simply says that
what this boobie measured was accurately recorded. I don't think the
verse in question claimed the measurement, the means of measuring or the
measurer were infallible. I don't remember it talking about God
personally comming down and pulling out the god's own laser measuring
devices. So are we done with this one yet?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT