[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQO8Ul4r3KQ[/yt]
Dr. Shabir Ally is to Sunni Islam what Bp. Barron is to Catholicism. A controversial figure, to say the least. As for Jay Dyer, I have no idea who he is. I checked him out and it seems the man has changed his religious affiliation at least five times now.
In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
Dr. Shabir Ally is to Sunni Islam what Bp. Barron is to Catholicism. A controversial figure, to say the least. As for Jay Dyer, I have no idea who he is. I checked him out and it seems the man has changed his religious affiliation at least five times now.
Bishop Barron is not controversial outside of tiny traditionalist circles and far-left fringe groups. And there's nothing
controversial about the Muslim's claims concerning the Bible and Jesus Christ in this video, nor his presuppositions and arguments; they are standard to Islamic apologists and their attacks upon Christianity.
QuoteIn any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.
The video isn't
titled that. I
titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
Generally, people who erroneously use the term
entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.
The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.
Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word
entitled is perfectly correct.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/entitled
entitled
in British English
(?n?ta?t?ld)
ADJECTIVE
1. having a title or name
a book entitled Decorative Designs2. having the right or permission to do something
You are entitled to a refund.
They are entitled to travel first class.
It is your own response that smacks of hypercorrective pretense.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 11:56:25 AM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.
The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.
Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.
No, it is not, modern usage by the same people who have dropped the dative
whom and employ
their as a singular pronoun aside, and the amusing thing about the example in your citation is that the word is not serving the function of an
adjective. Regardless, it muddies the language and cedes clarity for the sake of sounding fancy.
Or is that
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless)
?
Bye, sock puppet.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 01:11:18 PM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 11:56:25 AM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.
The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.
Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.
No, it is not, modern usage by the same people who have dropped the dative whom and employ their as a singular pronoun aside, and the amusing thing about the example in your citation is that the word is not serving the function of an adjective. Regardless, it muddies the language and cedes clarity for the sake of sounding fancy.
Or is that
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless)
?
Bye, sock puppet.
These are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language. My point stands.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 01:11:18 PM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 11:56:25 AM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.
The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.
Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.
No, it is not, modern usage by the same people who have dropped the dative whom and employ their as a singular pronoun aside, and the amusing thing about the example in your citation is that the word is not serving the function of an adjective. Regardless, it muddies the language and cedes clarity for the sake of sounding fancy.
Or is that
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless)
?
Bye, sock puppet.
These are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language.
That's a mere assertion. You haven't demonstrated which of the things I've said is baseless and erroneous or why, nor have you indicated what this supposed deep ignorance of language is. If you're appealing to the postmodern notion that popular usage determines correctness, you can shove it.
By the way, Allah is still the Enemy, Mohammed a false prophet, and Islam a doctrine of devils.
Quote
My point stands.
Your "point" is merely to cite a dictionary that also claims
irregardless as a word and the following use of
literally as valid:
1. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb, ADVERB adjective]
You can use literally to emphasize a statement. Some careful speakers of English think that this use is incorrect.
[emphasis]
We've got to get the economy under control or it will literally eat us up.
The views are literally breath-taking.
2. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb]
You use literally to emphasize that what you are saying is true, even though it seems exaggerated or surprising.
[emphasis]
Putting on an opera is a tremendous enterprise involving literally hundreds of people.
I literally crawled to the car.
Go back to your pots and pans.
Witness the desperate attempts by Vetus and his sock puppet to distract from a video that essentially demolishes Islam by showing its conception of God to be incoherent and its Antichrist claims about Jesus false.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 11:31:37 AMOf course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
It's not worth my time, or anyone's, because of three main things:
1. Dr. Ally is not an orthodox representative of Sunni Islam. I've watched him before with Dr. James White and I felt it was a waste of time;
2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;
3. These issues have been debated to death. It's only profitable to learn about this divide between Christian and Islamic theology from mature and serious debaters from each camp like Fr. Pacwa, Dr. White, Abdullah Kunde or Dr. Ataie, for instance. Even better is to dive into the traditional sources and theological schools yourself and enrich your perspective in that matter. Polemics and debates can only go so far.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 01:11:18 PM
Bye, sock puppet.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 02:23:57 PM
Go back to your pots and pans.
Always the cad, Kreuzritter.
You want to be banned again, don't you?
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 02:04:18 PMThese are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language.
That's a mere assertion. You haven't demonstrated which of the things I've said is baseless and erroneous or why, nor have you indicated what this supposed deep ignorance of language is. If you're appealing to the postmodern notion that popular usage determines correctness, you can shove it.
You fail to support any of your claims with actual evidence. Though some may fall within the range of personal opinion regarding mere stylistics, your assertion that the word
entitled in the dictionary entry cited is not functioning as an adjective is objectively false. The fact that you do not understand something as simple as what an adjective is reveals a deep ignorance of language.
QuoteYour "point" is merely to cite a dictionary that also claims irregardless as a word and the following use of literally as valid:
1. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb, ADVERB adjective]
You can use literally to emphasize a statement. Some careful speakers of English think that this use is incorrect.
[emphasis]
We've got to get the economy under control or it will literally eat us up.
The views are literally breath-taking.
2. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb]
You use literally to emphasize that what you are saying is true, even though it seems exaggerated or surprising.
[emphasis]
Putting on an opera is a tremendous enterprise involving literally hundreds of people.
I literally crawled to the car.
Go back to your pots and pans.
No, my point was that Vetus' use of the word
entitled was perfectly correct. The dictionary entry was evidence to support that claim. (See how that works?) So now you want to argue that the dictionary is not an authority, because it includes modern usages considered incorrect, even though it makes note of that fact in the case of
literally. That is irrelevant. Vetus' use of the word
entitled is not a recent innovation, nor is it considered incorrect. Or can you demonstrate otherwise with actual evidence, not just more belligerent blustering?
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 02:29:50 PM
Witness the desperate attempts by Vetus and his sock puppet to distract from a video that essentially demolishes Islam by showing its conception of God to be incoherent and its Antichrist claims about Jesus false.
You are the one who turned this discussion to language. I was responding to the tangent
you created.
Far be it from me to try to take on the intellectual magnitude of a YouTube video.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 02:51:47 PM
2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;
Aren't you on your 3rd or 4th? Traditional Catholic to Anglican/Reformed back to Catholic to Hopeful Fatalist/Muslim?
Those in glass houses and such.
Quote from: abc123 on September 02, 2020, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 02:51:47 PM
2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;
Aren't you on your 3rd or 4th? Traditional Catholic to Anglican/Reformed back to Catholic to Hopeful Fatalist/Muslim?
Those in glass houses and such.
Not really.
Unlike Dyer, and many others that haunt religious forums online, I've never left the Church I was born in, nor do I make a living out of cheap polemics on YouTube. Do not confuse my recognition and acceptance of the inescapable paradoxes of Traditional Catholicism with changing religion.
What about you?
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 03:06:44 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 02:04:18 PMThese are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language.
That's a mere assertion. You haven't demonstrated which of the things I've said is baseless and erroneous or why, nor have you indicated what this supposed deep ignorance of language is. If you're appealing to the postmodern notion that popular usage determines correctness, you can shove it.
You fail to support any of your claims with actual evidence.
As do you. I'm still waiting for that explication of what is baseless and erroneous - and why.
QuoteThough some may fall within the range of personal opinion regarding mere stylistics, your assertion that the word entitled in the dictionary entry cited is not functioning as an adjective is objectively false.
No, it's not "objectively" false.
Entitled in
a book entitled Decorative Designs is a form of verb, a participle, and not an adjective any more than
coloured in
a rose coloured red; only the phrase
entitled Decorative Designs as a whole in functioning similarly to an adjective, and to take the lone verb as functioning as an adjective would render
entitled Decorative Designs unintelligible. It's an entirely different matter from something like
the rose is coloured, full stop. And neither Websters nor the Oxford English Dictionary list the first sense of
entitled as an adjective.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitled (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitled)
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/entitled?q=entitled (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/entitled?q=entitled)
QuoteThe fact that you do not understand something as simple as what an adjective is reveals a deep ignorance of language.
That the author of the entry for
entitled in the Collins dictionary has the same grasp on the logic of grammar as you reveals how worthless it is.
QuoteNo, my point was that Vetus' use of the word entitled was perfectly correct. The dictionary entry was evidence to support that claim. (See how that works?)
It's an appeal to an authority that has undermined its own reliability through inclusion of nonsensical words and usages in its publications. They are so because that sense of correctness of language is not determined by usage but the logically coherent rules that govern parts of speech to make consistently intelligible sentences when pieced together. Your source is therefore epistemically worthless to me when it comes to determining that correctness. Being the work of boors, it's even more worthless to me when it comes to stylistic correctness. See how that works?
QuoteSo now you want to argue that the dictionary is not an authority, because it includes modern usages considered incorrect, even though it makes note of that fact in the case of literally. That is irrelevant.
No, it's not
irrelevant. It's most relevant.
QuoteVetus' use of the word entitled is not a recent innovation, nor is it considered incorrect. Or can you demonstrate otherwise with actual evidence, not just more belligerent blustering?
No, it's an archaism that has become all-too common. Most style guides, like the Associated Press Stylebook, address it and confirm it is to be avoided in this function.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 02:29:50 PM
Witness the desperate attempts by Vetus and his sock puppet to distract from a video that essentially demolishes Islam by showing its conception of God to be incoherent and its Antichrist claims about Jesus false.
You are the one who turned this discussion to language. I was responding to the tangent you created.
No, you picked out a quip while completely ignoring the actual subject.
QuoteFar be it from me to try to take on the intellectual magnitude of a YouTube video.
Obviously. Jay Dyer would wipe the floor with you.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 11:31:37 AMOf course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.
It's not worth my time, or anyone's, because of three main things:
Yet it was "worth your time" to write something in this thread. Next time, if you have neither anything constructive to offer nor any criticism based in a consideration of the actual object of that criticism, spare us.
Quote
1. Dr. Ally is not an orthodox representative of Sunni Islam. I've watched him before with Dr. James White and I felt it was a waste of time;
And I re-assert, there's nothing heterodox about the Ally's claims concerning the Bible and Jesus Christ in this video, nor his presuppositions and arguments; they are standard to Islamic apologists and their attacks upon Christianity.
Quote2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;
What you call not being able to make up his mind I call evidence of an honest search for truth in a world of lies, and what you call not being "motivated" I call evasion.
If you can't be bothered to actually watch what you're addressing, don't address it. It's presumptuous, tendentious and stupidQuote3. These issues have been debated to death. It's only profitable to learn about this divide between Christian and Islamic theology from mature and serious debaters from each camp like Fr. Pacwa, Dr. White, Abdullah Kunde or Dr. Ataie, for instance. Even better is to dive into the traditional sources and theological schools yourself and enrich your perspective in that matter. Polemics and debates can only go so far.
These issues, just like those of Protestantism, have
not been debated from the perspective of Eastern Orthodox theology and a sophisticated philosophical basis that is, unlike those of most Catholic and Protestant apologists, fundamentally at odds with the presuppositions underlying Islamic theology and apologetics. That is one of the most telling things about the video. Ally was a fish out of water.
Jay Dyer
is a serious debater, for all his goofy humour, and the given the indirect exchanges between him and James White, it's evident enough who is both on the right side would dominate any debate between the two.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 01:11:18 PM
You want to be banned again, don't you?
Don't tell me "Fleur-de-Lys" is not your sockpuppet. "She" follows you about like a sick puppy, likes all your posts, and concurs with everything you say, particularly whenever Islam is the subject. If that's real, it's actually quite pathetic.
Past participles can and do function as adjectives, whether alone or as part of a phrase. If you cannot understand that or the difference between providing evidence and making baseless assertions then we are at an impasse.
By all means, continue with your demolition of Islam.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 05:36:21 PM
Past participles can and do function as adjectives, whether alone or as part of a phrase.
You're just parroting of something you read. It's not based in any consideration of the logic of a construction like "a book entitled xyz". If "entitled" on its own is functioning as an adjective in that construction, then "entitled xyz" is unintelligible
nonsense, because that phrase requires entitled to act as a verb in order to
make sense. It is that phrase which, considered atomically, is acting as an adjective. This is called an
argument, woman, and in this case it is
proof. But this is typical of a female, namely the inability to actually analyse and think for herself - which is why the number of women in history to have had an original intellectual idea can literally be counted on one hand.
She says "evidence" but she means "cite an authority - analytic arguments not allowed".
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 05:35:34 PM
Don't tell me "Fleur-de-Lys" is not your sockpuppet. "She" follows you about like a sick puppy, likes all your posts, and concurs with everything you say, particularly whenever Islam is the subject. If that's real, it's actually quite pathetic.
It's sick, pathetic, and seems unreal to have someone who regularly agrees with you and supports you when you are attacked?
Maybe someday you'll know what it's like to have someone who likes you, Theosist.
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 05:35:34 PMIf you can't be bothered to actually watch what you're addressing, don't address it. It's presumptuous, tendentious and stupid
Since you have proven, time and again, that you can't be bothered to engage meaningfully with Islamic theology on its own terms and to deal with it fairly and objectively, I suggest you follow your own advice.
QuoteThese issues, just like those of Protestantism, have not been debated from the perspective of Eastern Orthodox theology and a sophisticated philosophical basis that is, unlike those of most Catholic and Protestant apologists, fundamentally at odds with the presuppositions underlying Islamic theology and apologetics. That is one of the most telling things about the video. Ally was a fish out of water.
Ah, so you're enamored with Eastern Orthodoxy now. And Palamism, I suspect.
QuoteDon't tell me "Fleur-de-Lys" is not your sockpuppet. "She" follows you about like a sick puppy, likes all your posts, and concurs with everything you say, particularly whenever Islam is the subject. If that's real, it's actually quite pathetic.
Fleur is a real lady, a mother and a teacher who has had the holy patience to endure your rudeness and degrading behavior.
The only sockpuppet here is you, Kreuzritter.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 05:35:34 PM
Don't tell me "Fleur-de-Lys" is not your sockpuppet. "She" follows you about like a sick puppy, likes all your posts, and concurs with everything you say, particularly whenever Islam is the subject. If that's real, it's actually quite pathetic.
It's sick, pathetic, and seems unreal to have someone who regularly agrees with you and supports you when you are attacked?
Maybe someday you'll know what it's like to have someone who likes you, Theosist.
I apologise. I didn't realise you are so emotionally attached to him.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 05:53:19 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 05:35:34 PMIf you can't be bothered to actually watch what you're addressing, don't address it. It's presumptuous, tendentious and stupid
Since you have proven, time and again, that you can't be bothered to engage meaningfully with Islamic theology on its own terms and to deal with it fairly and objectively, I suggest you follow your own advice.
I engage with Islamic theology, as I engage with all things, on the terms of my world view. What you're asking for is relativistic nonsense, and we see in your case how it reaches peak absurdity when you start insisting that the propositions of Islamic jurisprudence on sex with a pubescent child be taken into account in judging Mohammed's rape of a nine-year-old girl.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: abc123 on September 02, 2020, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 02:51:47 PM
2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;
Aren't you on your 3rd or 4th? Traditional Catholic to Anglican/Reformed back to Catholic to Hopeful Fatalist/Muslim?
Those in glass houses and such.
Not really.
Unlike Dyer, and many others that haunt religious forums online, I've never left the Church I was born in, nor do I make a living out of cheap polemics on YouTube. Do not confuse my recognition and acceptance of the inescapable paradoxes of Traditional Catholicism with changing religion.
I'm glad you haven't changed religion (indeed I heard it said you are a still a devout practicing Catholic) but putting "Hopeful Fatalist" in the field generally used for "religion" is confusing to say the least... as is studying Islam as deeply as you do.
Jay Dyer doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism, and his understanding of Orthodoxy is quite limited in scope
and very biased. The ignorance of history is astounding. His attitude in debates is extremely confrontational, egotistic
and annoying. The last time I heard him - I will not ever listen again - is when Reason and Theology banned him after
his unnecessarily insulting and rude treatment of Erik Ybarra. Ybarra deserves much respect for putting up with Dyer's
shameful tactics. Another critic of Jay Dyer, Luc Dauvin (his channel was Luc Dauvin Horseshoer) got so irate at Dyer
he would go off - and his You Tube channel has been shut down for reasons unexplained.
I do not respect Dyer as a supposed Christian or a commentator.
Quote from: Santantonio on September 06, 2020, 09:57:13 AM
Jay Dyer doesn't know the first thing about Catholicism, and his understanding of Orthodoxy is quite limited in scope
and very biased. The ignorance of history is astounding. His attitude in debates is extremely confrontational, egotistic
and annoying. The last time I heard him - I will not ever listen again - is when Reason and Theology banned him after
his unnecessarily insulting and rude treatment of Erik Ybarra. Ybarra deserves much respect for putting up with Dyer's
shameful tactics. Another critic of Jay Dyer, Luc Dauvin (his channel was Luc Dauvin Horseshoer) got so irate at Dyer
he would go off - and his You Tube channel has been shut down for reasons unexplained.
I do not respect Dyer as a supposed Christian or a commentator.
The first statement is simply a lie. So is the second about an ignorance of history. And Ybarra was only insulted for being an idiot after being repeatedly confronted on presuppositions underlying his specious "proofs" of papal claims from his tendentious readings of ancient Patristic and conciliar texts, to which he had no answer and seemingly didn't even understand the problem.
Vetus Weirdo will like this
https://twitter.com/CatholicArena/status/1314619209587003392
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 05:35:34 PM
Don't tell me "Fleur-de-Lys" is not your sockpuppet. "She" follows you about like a sick puppy, likes all your posts, and concurs with everything you say, particularly whenever Islam is the subject. If that's real, it's actually quite pathetic.
It's sick, pathetic, and seems unreal to have someone who regularly agrees with you and supports you when you are attacked?
Maybe someday you'll know what it's like to have someone who likes you, Theosist.
Not condoning Theosist's attitude and above post, but this was a shockingly nasty thing to write.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 02, 2020, 05:53:19 PM
Ah, so you're enamored with Eastern Orthodoxy now. And Palamism, I suspect.
Wouldn't surprise me if Theosist was actually Mr. Dyer himself. His style of argumentation on this forum seems similar to Dyer's (although he hasn't brought up the cringe conspiracy pandering yet, although Dyer himself is obviously self-aware of the total nonsense he spreads on the topic of conspiracies if you listen to him for a second).
And Palamism and Thomism are both flawed, incoherent (logical) systems which justify their illogicality on the basis of the incomprehensibility of God.
Quote from: Greg on October 13, 2020, 03:24:57 PM
Vetus Weirdo will like this
https://twitter.com/CatholicArena/status/1314619209587003392
What I find hilariously sad is that you know this priest knows nothing about the Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, or Syriac Catholic traditions.
It's obvious this is all nonsense and Jay isn't being serious. I mean, conspiracies? Seriously?
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxhXVudkkhw&list=PLWZXUlv7zA3DHS7uDYI4pLEObLrMVDXnc[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-YcWQHFr90&t=9701s[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVqLvdMs6NQ[/yt]
Quote from: The Theosist on October 14, 2020, 08:56:20 AM
It's obvious this is all nonsense and Jay isn't being serious. I mean, conspiracies? Seriously?
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxhXVudkkhw&list=PLWZXUlv7zA3DHS7uDYI4pLEObLrMVDXnc[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-YcWQHFr90&t=9701s[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVqLvdMs6NQ[/yt]
Of all the videos I've listened to Jay Dyer on the topic of conspiracies, at least for me, there are several key factors that stand out.
1. In Jay Dyer's arguments for conspiracies, he does not at all set a limit for what the "conspirators'" capacities are, he inconsistently shifts between complete omnipotence to incompetency to the point of absurdity - he will point out that Trump's election was such a stir against the elites, yet he will at the same time argue the elites are in so much control that they can brainwash people through mass media films perpetuated by the government...
2. He doesn't have a coherent viewpoint of what the "goal" is, other than suggestions of "Satanic" and "control"
3. Some of the ideas are so absurd on their face that it's hard to take it seriously. The MK-Ultra experiments, while a real thing, were a total failure. It turns out you
cannot use LSD systematically to make sleeper agents. And as a matter of fact, the CIA was caught doing this crap, to the point they burned all the files they had and acted like a good lil puppy that didn't do nothing wrong.
How does that then logically extend to the CIA has this omnipotent capacity to brainwash individuals through mainstream media? Please tell me. Even if MK-Ultra was a success and the CIA was still brainwashing people through LSD, why would they suddenly have complete dominion over Hollywood production to such a degree that Hollywood executive would spend dozens of millions of dollars to produce brainwashing films, and that these brainwashing methodologies would somehow be effective to any similiar degree MK-Ultra was?
I think that what Dyer observes has much more simple explanations.
1. Bankers have deep monetary influences on the Vatican to the point that the Church is cannibalizing itself. If the Catholic Church doesn't obey the bankers, bye bye Catholic Church funds. And this means obeying Soros ideological goals (not that Soros is the one directly involved, but people who share his disgusting, degenerate worldview).
If it was the "CIA" involved, we would see more support from the Catholic Church on U.S. Foreign Policy goals.But we don't. Instead, we see the exact same ideological strains that we see from groups like BLM, Eastern European leftist groups like "FEMEN", and "Democratic Revolutionaries" in the West. To me, that suggests that all these groups have the same source of monetary funding.
2. Media is killing us because dopamine stimulation is marketable. More sex, drugs, and hedonism = $$$
The average Joe just consumes and doesn't think about the future. And women - more or less, not every woman mind you - tends to try to find social acceptance and find themselves in the person of "average Joe". Both men and women are left degenerate and almost non-human, and that leads to societal collapse and decadence. One just needs to browse relationship issues on Reddit to see how horribly screwed our society is. Like we are screwed.
Quote from: dellery on October 13, 2020, 07:15:39 PM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 02, 2020, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: The Theosist on September 02, 2020, 05:35:34 PM
Don't tell me "Fleur-de-Lys" is not your sockpuppet. "She" follows you about like a sick puppy, likes all your posts, and concurs with everything you say, particularly whenever Islam is the subject. If that's real, it's actually quite pathetic.
It's sick, pathetic, and seems unreal to have someone who regularly agrees with you and supports you when you are attacked?
Maybe someday you'll know what it's like to have someone who likes you, Theosist.
Not condoning Theosist's attitude and above post, but this was a shockingly nasty thing to write.
Kreuzritter insults her repeatedly all across the forum in a gratuitous manner for months and you don't say anything. After all, it's no big deal to have a man insult women non-stop around here. It's fun.
Then she finally answers him in a very charitable manner, saying that she hopes he will know what it's like to have someone who likes him one day. And that's true: Kreuzritter (or The Theosist) has come across as a very bitter and lonely person. But now you had too much. That can't be. He can insult her left and right but when Fleur dares to answer him you break your silence to categorize her perfectly reasonable response as "nasty."
Fascinating moral compass.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on October 14, 2020, 08:21:45 AM
Wouldn't surprise me if Theosist was actually Mr. Dyer himself. His style of argumentation on this forum seems similar to Dyer's (although he hasn't brought up the cringe conspiracy pandering yet, although Dyer himself is obviously self-aware of the total nonsense he spreads on the topic of conspiracies if you listen to him for a second).
Funny you say that, I was thinking the same thing.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on October 16, 2020, 06:56:53 AM
Kreuzritter insults her repeatedly all across the forum in a gratuitous manner for months and you don't say anything. After all, it's no big deal to have a man insult women non-stop around here. It's fun.
Then she finally answers him in a very charitable manner, saying that she hopes he will know what it's like to have someone who likes him one day. And that's true: Kreuzritter (or The Theosist) has come across as a very bitter and lonely person. But now you had too much. That can't be. He can insult her left and right but when Fleur dares to answer him you break your silence to categorize her perfectly reasonable response as "nasty."
Fascinating moral compass.
There's a lot on this forum I don't read.
Funny enough many Sunni Muslims view Shabir Ally as a kafir murtad i.e an apostate infidel for his rejection of many hadiths or oral reports of Muhammad and for being a modernist. Besides Jay Dyer is no better a representative of Christianity with his flamboyant, aggressive, and controversial views.
Another beheading in Paris.
Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2020, 10:37:01 PM
Another beheading in Paris.
Ah yes, the favorite Saracen past time when not engaging in rape or full scale invasions.