Thursday, September 26, 2013

JERSEY FLIGHT DEMOLISHES CATHOLIC FANATIC MARK SHEA

 
 What Mark Shea Was Afraid To Post:
 
Mr. Shea, in your hastiness it seems you proceeded to debate my assistant. Did the person you spoke with ever introduce themselves as Jersey Flight? Then on what grounds did you assume this? My assistant was contacting you (on my behalf) to schedule a debate. [I hope you find this as amusing as I do?]  

If your post is fair would you not figure in my reply? [One must also thank you for the excellent press.]
Indeed, do you not have a high view of yourself? It is no surprise that a man who worships the Pope would speak as though he were himself a kind of Pope. 

A question was asked to which you responded in the negative. You spoke as though my assistant made a declarative statement! This was not the case, he asked you a question: are you afraid to engage in debate with me?
Again, you offered an altogether hasty reply.

I have no pity for your busyness; for what is the nature of your busyness after all? Producing more literature to corrupt the minds of youth! Intense concentration in archaic sophistry! You ought to be pulled away; you ought to be called out! Cease from error; leave our children alone! If you desire to waste your own life this is one thing, but to indoctrinate children with your rubbish, this brings you before men like me.
    
The point of debating is not to convert the audience but to prove, that people like yourself, are intellectual charlatans; to reshape the consensus of culture. To prove that men like you merely exist by way of posture.

You have a Phantom; you have a Trinity; you pledge allegiance to the Pope.

[in all truth (P) and (T) are the same thing.]

There is no need to debate a man like you, when any detailed exposition of your beliefs, would prove that your beliefs refute themselves! Clearly your beliefs are fantastic! Behold the field of theological diversity!

"Let them first agree and consent together that God is of such and such a nature, and then, when they have sketched out for us that nature, let them require that we should form a conception of God." Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book III, Chap.III 

Instead of thrusting your anger and agitation at not being able to manage your schedule (as if you were the only one who is busy); perhaps you could simply reply as the adult you claim to be, by saying you don't have time? This is much more mature on your part. But then again, believing in a Trinity as you do, I highly doubt you care about the nature of the maturity of your belief? 

It matters not. You have merely left the conversation to the future; to a generation which does not share your values. This is a prime example of the Churches' forced retreat [into theological obscurity to avoid the reality of public scrutiny.]

In one generation I predict your sect will become culturally obsolete.

Anyone can strike a man in the face and run away, which is precisely what you have done by the insinuation of your post. Try supporting the claims of your piety. I wonder how many people you have bullied with your rhetoric? [Perhaps you can reference your argument for the truth of the Trinity?] 
 
Leave my assistant alone. If you have issues with me then step up to the plate or forever hold your peace.  

I have already won the exchange by the very fact that you refuse to have it.

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

Friday, September 6, 2013

WILLIAM HAZLITT ON THEOLOGY

...Such is the use which has been made of human learning. The labourers in this vineyard seem as if it was their object to confound all common sense, and the distinctions of good and evil, by means of traditional maxims and preconceived notions taken upon trust, and increasing in absurdity with increase of age. They pile hypotheses on hypotheses, mountain high, till it is impossible to come to the plain truth on any question. They see things, not as they are, but as they find them in books, and 'wink and shut their apprehension up', in order that they may discover nothing to interfere with their prejudices or convince them of their absurdity. It might be supposed that the height of human wisdom consisted in maintaining contradictions and rendering nonsense sacred. There is no dogma, however fierce or foolish, to which these persons have not set their seals, and tried to impose on the understandings of their followers, as the will of Heaven, clothed with all the terrors and sanctions of religion. How little has the human understanding been directed to find out the true and useful! How much ingenuity has been thrown away in defense of creeds and systems! How much time and talents have been wasted in theological controversy, in law, in politics, in verbal criticism, in judicial astrology and in finding out the art of making gold! What actual benefit do we reap form the writings of a Laud or Whitgift, or of Bishop Bull or Bishop Waterland, or Prideaux' Connections or Beausobre, or Calmet, or St Augustine, or Puffendorf, or Vattel, or from the more literal but equally learned and unprofitable labours of Scaliger, Cardan, and Scioppius? How many grains of sense are there in their thousand folio or quarto volumes? What would the world lose if they were committed to the flames to-morrow? Or are they not already 'gone to the vault of all the Capulets'? Yet all these were oracles in their time, and would have scoffed at you or me, at common sense and human nature, for differing with them. It is our turn to laugh now.
[William Hazlitt, On the Ignorance of the Learned, Table Talk, Essays on Men and Manners]