It seems to me that you are simply projecting your own passionate interest in the matter on anyone who considers it.
No, rather it seems that you are incapable of tasks as simple as reading
what one is actually
saying. See the following response.
you say that they are all interestedNo
, that is evidently not
what I said. I would greatly appreciate it if you learnt to read
what you are responding to, properly. I said:
In response, I listed a range of groups that would generally fall under “interested and subjective”, without implying that each group necessarily qualifies for both.
The groups I listed were therefore either
interested or subjective (“passionate”) but not necessarily both
and hence not necessarily inetersted
. One is interested
in a matter if one conclusion or another promotes or disservices their own position which is held by virtue of their affiliation with a particular group. One is subjective
regarding a matter, if they adopt certain unique presuppositions that are not held by others.
Got it? I hope things are clearer for you this time around.
"No I don’t; nor do I really care; it’s irrelevant." the question is begged.
How on earth am I begging the question? Your subsequent comments to this baseless charge make no sense at all with respect to the point I was making in context. I was merely asserting its irrelevance with regards to the general point I was making. I brought up Anglicanism simply as an example amongst others, to demonstrate the general point I was making, however as my general point was not contingent upon that nor any example, then such an example was irrelevant.
Again, you need to learn to read what someone is saying in context. I cannot keep clarifying points that are very simply made. Please adopt some common sense in this discussion.
Well, it's in his position as bishop, and in the quality of his argument. It is most certainly not in his appointment as a Father Of The Church; such an article can testify to that appointment and how his statements are thus preceived by church members, but it cannot without bias accept that authority in directing the article's conclusions. There's nothing in that which cannot be carried out by the Atheist or Anglican alike; it's only you who seems to have the problem that you cannot set that authority aside
I don’t understand why it is you fail to understand or grasp very simple points. This is now the third time I have to correct your ridiculous imterpretation of what it is im saying.
I never claimed that a “general interest” article must
acknowledge St Cyril's authority as a Church Father and proponent of Church Tradition. What I am
saying (now listen carefully here, because I don’t want to have to correct you again), is that this very anti-Traditional conception of St Cyril is in and of itself a bias
. To the OO, EO or RC, an article based on such anti-Traditional/anti-ecclesiastical presuppositions is not neutral, since for these groups Tradition and ecclesiology are absolute truths, and hence presupposed in consideration of any relevant issues. On the other hand
, to the Atheist or the Protestant, an article that does
incorporate presuppositions based on Tradition and ecclesiology, lacks neutrality also. In light of this, here is the following fact that you fail to understand, in your passionate and bias approach to the issue:There is no such thing as objective neutrality
, because one man’s presupposition is another man’s rejected falsehood, and ultimately any arguments drawn or conclusions made in any article are ultimately shaped by those presuppositions adopted. Discard the presupposition that St Cyril is a proponent of Church Tradition, and the presupposition that Church Tradition is revelation from the Trinity Himself, and one may be able to argue that St Dioscorus the blessed Confessor of the Orthodox Faith had gone too far. However, uphold these presuppositions, and one will find it quite impossible to draw that same conclusion.
Another example is Biblical hermeneutics. You have the naturalists and supernaturalists. The former presuppose anti-supernaturalism, and hence seek to explain the Gospel accounts of miraculous behaviour in natural ways, or simply impute mythology to those aspects of the Gospels accounts. The latter presuppose a supreme deity involved with His creation, and hence the miracles accounted for by the Gospels are simply that — miracles, which occured in history. Presuppositions determine everything, and EVERYONE has their own presuppositions. This is common sense.
You keep coming back to the position that it's OK to use the titles and in general deliver up the position of one side in a context where a neutral viewpoint is a resonable expectation.
You insist on knocking down straw men. My position is very simple: the very expectation of “neutral viewpoints” is a stupid expectation
, for there is no such thing as a neutral viewpoint
. Since every viewpoint is bias in one way or another depending on any direct or indirect interests in the subject matter, or depending on the unique presuppositions adopted - which will not be shared by everyone
— then the use or disuse of certain titles serves no purpose with respect to the neutrality of the article, for there is no such thing as a neutral article in any event
. The use of titles will merely reveal the subjective position of the author, which exists whether such titles are used or not, and the non-use of titles will conceal the author’s subjective position, which again exists whether such titles are used or not.
+irini nem ehmot