Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?
"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean".
"I think you mean...", "You mean..."... Is there really a difference? You're still projecting your thoughts into the other person's mind.
And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".
Asserting your certainty that St. Basil the Great means nothing to me? I had never said anything about St. Basil prior to that post.
Asserting that my personal
opinion is that the Apostolic Canons are bogus? I never said that the Apostolic Canons are bogus and went to great pains to repeat to you that the only thing I considered bogus was your interpretation
of said Apostolic Canons.
Yes, these are both attempts to put words into my mouth. You did it to me, and now you've done it to serb1389
. You really need to stop doing that and start actually engaging what other people say.
I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Yes, we do have a few posters here who are critical of my debate style, but we also have a good number of posters here who have voiced their criticisms of your debate style. I'd say we're even.
I also notice that those contributors whose "support for your position" you like to cite here, Iconodule
, commented only on my debate style. They offered no words whatsoever in defense of the actual substance of your arguments on that thread.