Not to mention that Parker has zero desire to actually engage on the issues in the first place. He has been called out by many to show evidence for several claims he has made. He has not done so. He's a hack, nothing more.

Both Parker and Calvinist seemed to drop out about the same time in late February. I thought perhaps they'd agreed that being refuted was something they were giving up for Lent. Though neither has returned.

Usually I can sense where the person is trying to go with a topic, but in this case I'm left mainly puzzled by what Parker was trying to say, at least as to his first enumerated item. He seems to have some distinction in mind between "Tradition now" versus "Tradition then," though what that difference is to him remains unanswered. I don't know if it's just a matter of a perceived distinction in content (e.g., Tradition today affirms Mary's Assumption whereas he doesn't see that circa 4th Century). But he phrases it (alternatively) as a matter of definition or process which suggests something broader than just particular teachings. Maybe he'll return someday to explain.

In principle they are not; certainly not if the context is that of pleading one's innocence to a jury. Then the argument becomes paramount. Whether the Truths we debate here will bear as regards that final Judgment we all with face remains to be seen.

It's fair to say that the burden rests on the person affirming the proposition at hand. I don't think that should change according to the outlook of the particular forum. I recall rolling my eyes mightily when someone on an Evangelical board asserted that anything he said should be considered true unless I demonstrated otherwise. If Catholics hold up Tradition and Scripture as complementary Rules of Faith, someone like Parker can rightly ask for the justification.

Though the problem lies in what is considered acceptable proof. An Evangelical walking in here and asking the Catholic to prove a matter "just from the Bible" IS inherently stupid. Equally so is Parker asking for historical proof and then rejecting primary source material (e.g., the writings of St. Basil) with the fanciful assertion that such does "not pertain to direct evidence."

Brian

(O.K. This makes for post 99. If I do one more, I'm wondering if that finally takes me out of "Newbie" status.)

When you're the guy trying to convince a room full of people to change their religion, the burden of proof is on YOU....it is always the case that the person defending the status quo doesn't have to do anything, but the person arguing against the status quo is the one who has to prove something.

You don't have to prove anything to justify continuing to hold the same opinion, you have to prove something when you are trying to convince others to change their opinion.

Parker is trying to convince us to change our religion, and he is actually trying to use the argument that the burden of proof is on US....which is stupid.

Trying to ascertain a person's motivations is always a risky venture, but I'd be dumbfounded if Parker (who has been around the block here a few times) harbors that hope still at this point. There are those naive souls who are led to believe that if one but lays out the "clear truth of Scripture" before us Scripturally illiterate, blinded Catholics that we'll stumble to answer and the scales will fall from our eyes. Those types typically will venture confidently into the discussion and retreat immediately upon realizing how mistaken that assumption was.

I think at Parker's stage the person is more out to show (to him/herself or friends) that Catholicism rests upon a shaky foundation and can't be Bibically supported. It's more a matter of self-justification than conversion. I think that's why many never really venture outside the "sola scripture" box they inhabit. They aren't really trying to challenge the foundations of Catholic belief; they are merely trying to "prove" that Catholics can't defend their beliefs according to the standards the non-Catholic critics have set up, viz., the Bible only, as intepreted by that person or those who think like that person. So the Catholic can even cite to Protestant Bible commentaries and the present critic will typically just dismiss it as meaningless.

Parker here was actually trying to take on Catholics on a topic we consider a strong suit (history/Tradition). I don't think he proved in the least what he attempted. Probably he thinks otherwise.



We each have our varying approaches to these discussions. Mine is a simple one: 1) answer the question asked (if possible) and then 2) ask the person even harder questions. At this point, Parker is laying low. He says he's busy with work. These discussions can indeed be time-consuming (though when it's a thread you've started, my view is there's a bit of implied obligation to stick with it). Though Catholic critics seem to "get busy" right about the time they move from the offensive to the defensive posture on a topic. Call me a cynic.

"Citizen" Brian