Muslim Maniacs.

[dai bread]

That article about the basiji reminds me of how the Japanese took Hong Kong. They sent wave after wave of troops in, knowing that sooner or later, a machine-gun jams.

BTW, during WW2, the British had a mine-clearing device consisting of flailing chains on a revolving drum mounted on long arms in front of a tank. Whatever happened to that idea? Didn't it work on real minefields?

[Shapley]

Dai,

The idea is still around, and still used in a modified fashion. To get around it, however, the 'time delay' mine was devised. Once triggered, it activates a delay before blowing up, theoretically giving time for the drum the clear and the tank, tractor, or other propelling device to drive over the mine.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon]

Lliam, I'm not sure where you got that text, but papal infallibly would not apply in this situation. The Pope could apologize for this without violating any tenants of the church. But why would he?

[lliam]

Lliam, I'm not sure where you got that text, but papal infallibly would not apply in this situation. The Pope could apologize for this without violating any tenants of the church. But why would he?

==============================================
Hi Big, Mmmm, not sure where you going with this, I'm not a 'Theologian'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

About one-fifth of the planet is Roman Catholic, and the other non-Catholic billions would probably acknowledge Pope Benedict XVI's position as a moral force, just as I, a practicing Catholic, acknowledge the importance and impact of what the leaders and prophets of the world's other major religions have to say.

Here again the example of the Vatican is enlightening. Part of Catholic theology is the concept of Papal infallibility, a concept that surely must have been stretched to the breaking point during the Middle Ages and subsequent Renaissance. Papal infallibility means just what the words imply--that the Pope is never wrong. There is one major qualification: modern Popes almost never invoke the mantra of Papal infallibility. In other words, in almost all matters, the Pope acknowledges that he may very well be wrong. But every so often, a debate comes along that a Pope believes is so important, that he invokes Papal infallibility in arguing his case. This happens very rarely. Believe what you will about papal infallibility, Popes with numerous illegitimate children running large city-states in fifteenth century Italy have left me skeptical of the concept.

Still, the point remains. If the Pope almost always acknowledges his own moral fallibility, what does it say about ordinary individuals who don't? Granted, some issues require a public moral response. If you really believe abortion to be murder, I sure as hell hope that you're out there throwing your body in front of abortion clinics. But the great meat debate doesn't carry nearly the same moral gravity. However, I would like to point out that while strawberries and other fruits and veggies are responsible for the salinization of California's Central Valley, I don't ever recall seeing a YSEC table tent urging the protest of the latest Sharon-Stone-feeds-Michael-Douglas-chocolate-covered-strawberries-in-bed movie.

Doctor-assisted suicide is an abomination. I believe that issues must be left up to the individual. To inject morality into such debates, to say that I'm right because I think I am, and that's all, serves only to reveal the incredible arrogance of these groups and the individuals who make them up.

[BigJon]

OK, you do understand the concept. It just seemed you used the term in a way that you didn't.

[Shapley]

The Pope is infallible only when speaking ex Cathedra, that is, when he is speaking as the Pastor and Leader of the Church on issues of Church Doctrine.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

The Pope is infallible only when speaking ex Cathedra, that is, when he is speaking as the Pastor and Leader of the Church on issues of Church Doctrine.

And, if I am correct, the concept of papal infallibility was formalized as Church doctrine in 1870.

I'm sure it was more-or-less in use before that, though, since the 30-years-war, the Reformation, and the Counter-Reformation were well before 1870.

[Shapley]

And, if I am correct, the concept of papal infallibility was formalized as Church doctrine in 1870.

Yes, I believe that is correct, it was formalized as a result of the Vatican Council which ended that year.

[lliam]

According to the definition promulgated in 1870 by the First Vatican Council the pope exercises an infallible teaching office only when

(1) he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as pastor and teacher;

(2) he speaks with the manifest intention of binding the entire church to acceptance; and

(3) the matter pertains to faith or morals taught as a part of divine revelation handed down from apostolic times.

The pope is never considered infallible in his personal or private views. Since the middle of the 19th century, only two ex cathedra pronouncements have been made in the Roman Catholic church: the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX, and the definition of the Assumption of the Virgin in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

Infallibility is not regarded by its adherents as something miraculous or as a kind of clairvoyance. Rather, it is considered a grace, or divine gift, that is biblically and theologically grounded. Proponents point to many scriptural passages, such as the farewell discourses in John, especially the promise of the Spirit of truth (see John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). They hold that the church derives this gift from God, who alone is the ultimate source of infallibility. The matters subject to infallibility are doctrines rooted in Scripture and in the ancient traditions of the church, neither of which can be contradicted; thus, novel doctrines and other innovations are believed to be excluded. Infallibility is therefore seen as a gift that is to be exercised with the utmost care in the service of the gospel.

[lliam]

When we turn to Protestant or evangelical thought on this matter, we find that, in so far as it is used at all, infallibility is ascribed to the Old Testement and New Testement Scriptures as the prophetic and apostolic record.

It is so in the fourfold sense

(1) that the word of God infallibly achieves its end,

(2) that it gives us reliable testimony to the saving revelation and redemption of God in Christ,

(3) that it provides us with an authoritative norm of faith and conduct, and

(4) that there speaks through it the infallible Spirit of God by whom it is given.

In recent years concentration upon historical and scientific questions, and suspicion of the dogmatic infallibility claimed by the papacy, has led to severe criticism of the whole concept even as applied to the Bible; and it must be conceded that the term itself is not a biblical one and does not play any great part in actual Reformation theology. Yet in the senses indicated it is well adapted to bring out the authority and authenticity of Scripture. The church accepts and preserves the infallible Word as the true standard of its apostolicity; for the Word itself, i.e., Holy Scripture, owes its infallibility, not to any intrinsic or independent quality, but to the divine subject and author to whom the term infallibility may properly be applied.

Ironically, attacks upon biblical infallibility, which for over a century came mainly from liberal Protestants, have come in the last decade from conservatives, who argue that only "interrancy" (another word not found in Scripture) adequately protects the utter truthfulness and reliability of the Bible. Mainstream evangelicals, therefore, especially those who accept some of the methods and findings of modern scriptural study, are forced to defend the traditional concept of biblical infallibility over against liberals as a necessary basis for receiving divine revelation, and over against conservatives as an adequate basis.

[GreatCarouser]

Lliam,

"interrancy".....is that a typo for inerrancy?

[lliam]

Lliam,

"interrancy".....is that a typo for inerrancy?

Thanks GC it is of course........inerrancy.