I am trying to decide what I believe about sola Scriptura, i.e., the total and exclusive reliance on Scripture. But first I need to determine exactly what sola Scriptura is and is not. I’ll give here what I have found so far. Please let me know if I have left anything out or have something that is not part of sola Scriptura.
I. Scripture is the only complete, inspired, innerrant and infallible authority on the Christian faith.
II. Scripture explains everything necessary for salvation.
III. Scripture explains everything necessary to attain holiness.
IV. Scripture is the only legitimate source of revelation about God.
V. Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
VI. Cannonization of Scripure came through the passive recognition of books that were already considered to be sacred and authoritative without any reliance on tradition or ecclesiastical authority.
VII. No specialized training, education or knowledge is necessary to understand the elements of Scripture that are essential to salvation and holiness in that Scripture is the final authority unto itself and thus is self-interpreting in these matters.
By Scripture alone?
By Scripture alone?
If you only read one book then you will end up with a very distorted view of the world and those around you. If you are afraid to read more than one book then you have my sympathy. If you believe that the bible is the infallible word of god then there is no hope for you.
But I'm a free-thinker you need to make up your own mind.
But I'm a free-thinker you need to make up your own mind.
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1246173 wrote: If you only read one book then you will end up with a very distorted view of the world and those around you. If you are afraid to read more than one book then you have my sympathy. If you believe that the bible is the infallible word of god then there is no hope for you.
But I'm a free-thinker you need to make up your own mind.
So, if you buy a new washing machine, how many different manuals do you read, or do you stick to the one that came with it?
But I'm a free-thinker you need to make up your own mind.
So, if you buy a new washing machine, how many different manuals do you read, or do you stick to the one that came with it?
By Scripture alone?
hoppy;1246208 wrote: So, if you buy a new washing machine, how many different manuals do you read, or do you stick to the one that came with it?
Good point. Consulting too many authorities can easily lead to accepting no authority at all.
Good point. Consulting too many authorities can easily lead to accepting no authority at all.
By Scripture alone?
hoppy;1246208 wrote: So, if you buy a new washing machine, how many different manuals do you read, or do you stick to the one that came with it?
Strange analogy, mankind is a bit more than a washing machine which, apart from anything else, is not self aware.
posted by fija
Good point. Consulting too many authorities can easily lead to accepting no authority at all.
No it's not. First of all you have to decide if what you are consulting is an authority in the first place and can you trust it in the second. Are there others which may give you a different perspective? Do you merely take another persons word for what is an authority or do you come to that decision for yourself? If having decided Do you follow what another person's interpretation of what that authority is telling you or do you read it for yourself and decide?
Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
I’ll give here what I have found so far. Please let me know if I have left anything out or have something that is not part of sola Scriptura.
I. Scripture is the only complete, inspired, innerrant and infallible authority on the Christian faith.
If you had been born in a muslim country the odds are you would have viewed the koran in the same light as you do the bible. Which faith is right-or are both?
Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
So if you follow one of the protestant denominations does that mean you are wrong?
One interpretation of the koran has it's followers killing themselves to glorify god. one interpretation of the bible had Catholics setting fire to heretics to save their souls. Even now there are those who believe only they have the right of it and all else are damned. The armies of god marched to war singing hymns sure their god would help them send their enemy to meet the maker first. Praise the lord and keep your powder dry wasn't just a bit of idle flippancy.
So before you accept an authority maybe you should think about it.
Strange analogy, mankind is a bit more than a washing machine which, apart from anything else, is not self aware.
posted by fija
Good point. Consulting too many authorities can easily lead to accepting no authority at all.
No it's not. First of all you have to decide if what you are consulting is an authority in the first place and can you trust it in the second. Are there others which may give you a different perspective? Do you merely take another persons word for what is an authority or do you come to that decision for yourself? If having decided Do you follow what another person's interpretation of what that authority is telling you or do you read it for yourself and decide?
Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
I’ll give here what I have found so far. Please let me know if I have left anything out or have something that is not part of sola Scriptura.
I. Scripture is the only complete, inspired, innerrant and infallible authority on the Christian faith.
If you had been born in a muslim country the odds are you would have viewed the koran in the same light as you do the bible. Which faith is right-or are both?
Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
So if you follow one of the protestant denominations does that mean you are wrong?
One interpretation of the koran has it's followers killing themselves to glorify god. one interpretation of the bible had Catholics setting fire to heretics to save their souls. Even now there are those who believe only they have the right of it and all else are damned. The armies of god marched to war singing hymns sure their god would help them send their enemy to meet the maker first. Praise the lord and keep your powder dry wasn't just a bit of idle flippancy.
So before you accept an authority maybe you should think about it.
By Scripture alone?
GMC posted: Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?
Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?
By Scripture alone?
hoppy;1246208 wrote: So, if you buy a new washing machine, how many different manuals do you read, or do you stick to the one that came with it?
By then you've already bought the washing machine and you're stuck with it. How many washing machines did you look at before deciding which to buy?
By then you've already bought the washing machine and you're stuck with it. How many washing machines did you look at before deciding which to buy?
By Scripture alone?
hoppy;1246253 wrote: GMC posted: Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?
You tell me. You're the one that believes you will meet your maker some day. Personally I consider "I did what I thought was the right thing thing" is a better defence than "I did what someone told me was the right thing". At least it's not one that tries to dodge responsibility for your actions.
Is a murder committed in the name of religious belief any less a crime than one committed for other reasons?
Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?
You tell me. You're the one that believes you will meet your maker some day. Personally I consider "I did what I thought was the right thing thing" is a better defence than "I did what someone told me was the right thing". At least it's not one that tries to dodge responsibility for your actions.
Is a murder committed in the name of religious belief any less a crime than one committed for other reasons?
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1246278 wrote: You tell me. You're the one that believes you will meet your maker some day. Personally I consider "I did what I thought was the right thing thing" is a better defence than "I did what someone told me was the right thing". At least it's not one that tries to dodge responsibility for your actions.
Is a murder committed in the name of religious belief any less a crime than one committed for other reasons?
If you do not believe you will meet your maker, then you need no defense for anything you did.
Is a murder committed in the name of religious belief any less a crime than one committed for other reasons?
If you do not believe you will meet your maker, then you need no defense for anything you did.
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1246248 wrote: No it's not. First of all you have to decide if what you are consulting is an authority in the first place and can you trust it in the second.
My point is valid for the exact reasons you give that it is not. The more sources of authority you have the less likely you will trust any of them. The more sources of authority you have the more likely it will be that they do not agree and the harder it will be for you to trust any of them. In religious matters your source of authority must have a faith component: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.
Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
It would depend on whose orders you have been following. You are ignoring the fact that, in this life at least, the decisions you make can and usually do have consequences for others. You sound like you want to reject all authority that does not originate with you, but like it or not human society requires that no human being is completely free to do as he sees fit 100% of the time.
If you had been born in a muslim country the odds are you would have viewed the koran in the same light as you do the bible. Which faith is right-or are both?
I am not a Muslim and I haven’t made any systematic effort to study Islam, so I cannot comment.
So if you follow one of the protestant denominations does that mean you are wrong?
This would depend on what version of Protestantism you follow. I don’t consider myself a Protestant because all denominations (Protestant, Catholic and anything else) are more or less corrupt. In my personal view organized Christianity ceased to be legitimate Christianity when organized Christianity accepted the patronage of Constantine. The Church had legitimate apostolic succession until then meaning the Church was self-correcting. That stopped when Constantine sided with the Arian heretics.
If every human is an authority unto himself, then no authority is ever possible. The existence of authority in some form or another is a fact of life. Get over it.
So before you accept an authority maybe you should think about it.
And then what? I am sure that regardless of whatever authority I accept, you would find some reason to complain.
My point is valid for the exact reasons you give that it is not. The more sources of authority you have the less likely you will trust any of them. The more sources of authority you have the more likely it will be that they do not agree and the harder it will be for you to trust any of them. In religious matters your source of authority must have a faith component: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.
Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
It would depend on whose orders you have been following. You are ignoring the fact that, in this life at least, the decisions you make can and usually do have consequences for others. You sound like you want to reject all authority that does not originate with you, but like it or not human society requires that no human being is completely free to do as he sees fit 100% of the time.
If you had been born in a muslim country the odds are you would have viewed the koran in the same light as you do the bible. Which faith is right-or are both?
I am not a Muslim and I haven’t made any systematic effort to study Islam, so I cannot comment.
So if you follow one of the protestant denominations does that mean you are wrong?
This would depend on what version of Protestantism you follow. I don’t consider myself a Protestant because all denominations (Protestant, Catholic and anything else) are more or less corrupt. In my personal view organized Christianity ceased to be legitimate Christianity when organized Christianity accepted the patronage of Constantine. The Church had legitimate apostolic succession until then meaning the Church was self-correcting. That stopped when Constantine sided with the Arian heretics.
If every human is an authority unto himself, then no authority is ever possible. The existence of authority in some form or another is a fact of life. Get over it.
So before you accept an authority maybe you should think about it.
And then what? I am sure that regardless of whatever authority I accept, you would find some reason to complain.
By Scripture alone?
If you go with 'sola scriptura' - isn't the real question how trustworthy and infallible the decisions were of that group of men who determined somewhere in the third century which writings were canonical scriptura and which of the many others available were not scriptura? Even then there was considerable dispute. Then there were variants, language problems etc. Maybe the consensus reached by that early Congress was based on as many compromises, lobbyings and mistakes as any other political position working document. The Bible is a useful guide but to take sola scriptura to its logical conclusion - you're worshipping a book, not God. Isn't this idolatry?
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
By Scripture alone?
hoppy;1246253 wrote: GMC posted: Why should you accept an authority at all? At the end of the day you and only you are responsible for the decisions you make. What makes you think "I was only following orders" will be a good defence at the pearly gates?
Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?
Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?
Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246371 wrote: Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
Meaning?
Meaning?
By Scripture alone?
Meaning probably we're going ad hominem now.. let's not
---
I wanted to add to my post. Probably my biggest problem with a blanket 'sola scriptura' is that is limits God. It's people saying God has finished. I think it might be presumptious to say that.
---
I wanted to add to my post. Probably my biggest problem with a blanket 'sola scriptura' is that is limits God. It's people saying God has finished. I think it might be presumptious to say that.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1246278 wrote: You tell me. You're the one that believes you will meet your maker some day. Personally I consider "I did what I thought was the right thing thing" is a better defence than "I did what someone told me was the right thing".
How do you know that you always did the right thing if you yourself are the only authority that you will accept? You say claiming “I was just following orders†is not a good enough defense. In popular culture this invocation of “following orders†is meant to invoke the Nazis. But how many Nazis put in the dock at Nuremberg were only “just following orders� How many of them honestly believed that they were doing the “right thing†when they put Hitler in power, killed the Jews or started World War II? If you are your only authority you are bound to go wrong: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, Acts 16:31. Your claim that you always did what you personally thought was right is OK only as long as what you did was always right- by standards not your own since you will naturally always agree with yourself.
How do you know that you always did the right thing if you yourself are the only authority that you will accept? You say claiming “I was just following orders†is not a good enough defense. In popular culture this invocation of “following orders†is meant to invoke the Nazis. But how many Nazis put in the dock at Nuremberg were only “just following orders� How many of them honestly believed that they were doing the “right thing†when they put Hitler in power, killed the Jews or started World War II? If you are your only authority you are bound to go wrong: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, Acts 16:31. Your claim that you always did what you personally thought was right is OK only as long as what you did was always right- by standards not your own since you will naturally always agree with yourself.
By Scripture alone?
AussiePam;1246368 wrote: If you go with 'sola scriptura' - isn't the real question how trustworthy and infallible the decisions were of that group of men who determined somewhere in the third century which writings were canonical scriptura and which of the many others available were not scriptura?
This implies that someone with authority decided what is and is not Scripture- which (to my understanding) violates sola scriptura. As near as I can tell people who accept sola scriptura don't believe that the process of canonization took place rather the Church simply came to accept Scripture as Scripture because it was obvious to the faithful what Scripture is. Of course this idea canonization without any formal process or authority on man’s part is historically wrong. There was still no universally accepted canon at least until the time of Constantine who ordered Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of Scripture. This naturally meant that the canon had to be formally determined. We don't know what Eusebius accepted as Scripture because no known copy of his Scripture exists. But Constantine's order to Eusebius and his siding with the Arian heretics prompted Athanasius to declare a counter-canon and it is Athanasius' canon that Protestants accept.
Even then there was considerable dispute. Then there were variants, language problems etc. Maybe the consensus reached by that early Congress was based on as many compromises, lobbyings and mistakes as any other political position working document. The Bible is a useful guide but to take sola scriptura to its logical conclusion - you're worshipping a book, not God. Isn't this idolatry?
I am leaning more and more towards prima scriptura- everything you accept and do must coincide with the Bible regardless of what you accept as the Bible. The more I deal with people who believe sola scriptura (mainly Baptists) the more I lean prima scriptura.
This implies that someone with authority decided what is and is not Scripture- which (to my understanding) violates sola scriptura. As near as I can tell people who accept sola scriptura don't believe that the process of canonization took place rather the Church simply came to accept Scripture as Scripture because it was obvious to the faithful what Scripture is. Of course this idea canonization without any formal process or authority on man’s part is historically wrong. There was still no universally accepted canon at least until the time of Constantine who ordered Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of Scripture. This naturally meant that the canon had to be formally determined. We don't know what Eusebius accepted as Scripture because no known copy of his Scripture exists. But Constantine's order to Eusebius and his siding with the Arian heretics prompted Athanasius to declare a counter-canon and it is Athanasius' canon that Protestants accept.
Even then there was considerable dispute. Then there were variants, language problems etc. Maybe the consensus reached by that early Congress was based on as many compromises, lobbyings and mistakes as any other political position working document. The Bible is a useful guide but to take sola scriptura to its logical conclusion - you're worshipping a book, not God. Isn't this idolatry?
I am leaning more and more towards prima scriptura- everything you accept and do must coincide with the Bible regardless of what you accept as the Bible. The more I deal with people who believe sola scriptura (mainly Baptists) the more I lean prima scriptura.
By Scripture alone?
Bryn Mawr;1246376 wrote: Meaning?
He’s preaching anarchy in typical libertarian fashion.
He’s preaching anarchy in typical libertarian fashion.
By Scripture alone?
AussiePam;1246378 wrote: Meaning probably we're going ad hominem now.. let's not
Not really. You can likely better understand what this person is claiming if you understand what his motivation likely is. His rejection of authority in religious matters likely coincides with his rejection of authority in everything else.
I wanted to add to my post. Probably my biggest problem with a blanket 'sola scriptura' is that is limits God. It's people saying God has finished. I think it might be presumptious to say that.
This is one of my biggest objections as well. If you are old enough you may remember when President Reagan was negotiating nuclear arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan took to quoting the Russian proverb: trust but verify. Man is in no position to dictate to God how God can communicate with man. But this does not mean that we can accept anything and everything as godly. We have to trust God, but we also have to verify what He tells us. The Bible is our main verification tool. Faith in the Bible allows us to double check what God (and nature and anything else) is telling us.
Not really. You can likely better understand what this person is claiming if you understand what his motivation likely is. His rejection of authority in religious matters likely coincides with his rejection of authority in everything else.
I wanted to add to my post. Probably my biggest problem with a blanket 'sola scriptura' is that is limits God. It's people saying God has finished. I think it might be presumptious to say that.
This is one of my biggest objections as well. If you are old enough you may remember when President Reagan was negotiating nuclear arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan took to quoting the Russian proverb: trust but verify. Man is in no position to dictate to God how God can communicate with man. But this does not mean that we can accept anything and everything as godly. We have to trust God, but we also have to verify what He tells us. The Bible is our main verification tool. Faith in the Bible allows us to double check what God (and nature and anything else) is telling us.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246393 wrote: The Bible is our main verification tool. Faith in the Bible allows us to double check what God (and nature and anything else) is telling us.
Well my biggest problem is that the Bible is a large collection of writings, and by quoting selectively people can fairly easily find Divine support for their own often all too human agendas.
Well my biggest problem is that the Bible is a large collection of writings, and by quoting selectively people can fairly easily find Divine support for their own often all too human agendas.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Richard Bell
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am
By Scripture alone?
hoppy;1246208 wrote: So, if you buy a new washing machine, how many different manuals do you read, or do you stick to the one that came with it?
The manual that comes with the washing machine wasn't written by other washing machines 2,000 odd years ago, when washing technology consisted mainly of scrubbing linen robes on flat rocks down by the riverside.
Theology, OTOH...
The manual that comes with the washing machine wasn't written by other washing machines 2,000 odd years ago, when washing technology consisted mainly of scrubbing linen robes on flat rocks down by the riverside.
Theology, OTOH...
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246389 wrote: He’s preaching anarchy in typical libertarian fashion.
Not anarchy - just a different point of view to yours.
Not anarchy - just a different point of view to yours.
By Scripture alone?
AussiePam;1246414 wrote: Well my biggest problem is that the Bible is a large collection of writings,
So? The internal consistency of this collection of writings made by dozens of people over thousands of years is one of the chief reasons why Christians accept it as a product of God.
So? The internal consistency of this collection of writings made by dozens of people over thousands of years is one of the chief reasons why Christians accept it as a product of God.
By Scripture alone?
Bryn Mawr;1246444 wrote: Not anarchy - just a different point of view to yours.
The rejection of authority apart from the individual and the philosophy “if it feels good, do it†is anarchy.
The rejection of authority apart from the individual and the philosophy “if it feels good, do it†is anarchy.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246494 wrote: So? The internal consistency of this collection of writings made by dozens of people over thousands of years is one of the chief reasons why Christians accept it as a product of God.
My comment was about selective quoting, and you have quoted that comment, selectively.
A wise FGer wrote recently. Say what you have to say, then go. I've done that. Thank you.
My comment was about selective quoting, and you have quoted that comment, selectively.
A wise FGer wrote recently. Say what you have to say, then go. I've done that. Thank you.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
By Scripture alone?
AussiePam;1246626 wrote: My comment was about selective quoting, and you have quoted that comment, selectively.
Because I don’t deny the rest of your statement. But the fact that some people manipulate the Bible and misunderstand the Bible (both intentionally and unintentionally) does not negate the Bible’s holy status. What man erroneously does to the Bible is too easily used by people like you as an excuse to reject the Bible after you have already rejected it anyway.
A wise FGer wrote recently. Say what you have to say, then go. I've done that. Thank you.
Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
Because I don’t deny the rest of your statement. But the fact that some people manipulate the Bible and misunderstand the Bible (both intentionally and unintentionally) does not negate the Bible’s holy status. What man erroneously does to the Bible is too easily used by people like you as an excuse to reject the Bible after you have already rejected it anyway.
A wise FGer wrote recently. Say what you have to say, then go. I've done that. Thank you.
Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246650 wrote: Because I don’t deny the rest of your statement. But the fact that some people manipulate the Bible and misunderstand the Bible (both intentionally and unintentionally) does not negate the Bible’s holy status. What man erroneously does to the Bible is too easily used by people like you as an excuse to reject the Bible after you have already rejected it anyway.
Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
Your assumption about my reason for being done with this thread is as skewed as your assumption about my religious position.
I am Christian and I accept the Bible - but evidently not quite in the same way you are / do.
Several long term members of this forum have done you the courtesy to come into this thread to consider what you wrote and their responses have been met with what I can only call closed-minded incivility.
Perhaps we could all spend our time better.
Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
Your assumption about my reason for being done with this thread is as skewed as your assumption about my religious position.
I am Christian and I accept the Bible - but evidently not quite in the same way you are / do.
Several long term members of this forum have done you the courtesy to come into this thread to consider what you wrote and their responses have been met with what I can only call closed-minded incivility.
Perhaps we could all spend our time better.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246494 wrote: So? The internal consistency of this collection of writings made by dozens of people over thousands of years is one of the chief reasons why Christians accept it as a product of God.
There was also internal consistency in a collection of writings that caused people to think that the earth was flat.
There was also internal consistency in a collection of writings that caused people to think that the earth was flat.
By Scripture alone?
AussiePam;1246667 wrote: I am Christian and I accept the Bible -
Then how can you have any problem with it as per your statement, "Well my biggest problem is that the Bible..."?
Then how can you have any problem with it as per your statement, "Well my biggest problem is that the Bible..."?
By Scripture alone?
Lon;1246673 wrote: There was also internal consistency in a collection of writings that caused people to think that the earth was flat.
Care to give some examples?
Care to give some examples?
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
By Scripture alone?
i believe in sola scriptura. The bible is my all sufficient guide for faith and living 
Smoke signals ftw!
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246693 wrote: Care to give some examples?
I can, but will not. You have already made up your mind as I have mine. If you are really interested then research it yourself. It's easy enough to do.
I can, but will not. You have already made up your mind as I have mine. If you are really interested then research it yourself. It's easy enough to do.
By Scripture alone?
Omni_Skittles;1246715 wrote: i believe in sola scriptura. The bible is my all sufficient guide for faith and living
Sola Scriptura
I. Scripture is the only complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible authority on the Christian faith.
This places the Bible, i.e., something that has been written, compiled, copied and translated with human input over God because it prevents God from having any further direct face-to-face communication with mankind. This does not mean that the Bible isn’t inspired in its original form or in copies and translations thereof; God has the power to overcome and compensate for mankind’s sinful limitations. But human beings cannot dictate to God by telling Him that He must vest all of His power and authority in the Bible. Nobody who puts restrictions on God can accept God because their starting premise is that God cannot be supreme, omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because He must be subject to His creation.
If the Bible is the only means by which man can experience God, any man that rejects the Bible or has an erroneous knowledge of it cannot be corrected by God.
II. Scripture explains everything necessary for salvation.
If you have to have the Bible to be saved, what happens when people don’t have access to the Bible or have a corrupt version/translation of it? We are saved by faith in the divinity, sinlessness, atoning death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. The Bible must be secondary to faith since people who do not have access to the Bible can still have faith.
III. Scripture explains everything necessary to attain holiness.
Then why are so many “Bible believing†church congregations so full of adultery and lying and thievery and child molestation and so lacking in holiness?
And why do so many of these churches reject the plain words of the Bible when the Bible says that Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem exercised the power to determine Christian doctrine, set standards of Christian behavior and appoint leaders for the local congregations which were not meant to be independent of each other? Scripture itself explains that Scripture is not the sole source of authority for the Church.
People that accept sola scriptura deny the ongoing role of the Holy Ghost. Scripture is of no use to anyone who refuses to turn their life over to God and agree to be lead by the Holy Ghost. Holiness comes from God; Scripture is merely a conduit.
IV. Scripture is the only legitimate source of revelation about God.
The Bible itself states that there are other sources of revelation about the nature and power of God apart from the Bible: Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
V. Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
The Bible never says that everything in it was verbally inspired; very few passages in the Bible begin with God telling someone to write down what God is about to say to them.
VI. Canonization of Scripture came through the passive recognition of books that were already considered to be sacred and authoritative without any reliance on tradition or ecclesiastical authority.
I’ve addressed this already. “Passive recognition†is no different than tradition which violates sola scriptura, and final canonization came due to the Arian heresy when somebody on earth (Athanasius) had to speak with authority to settle the matter.
VII. No specialized training, education or knowledge is necessary to understand the elements of Scripture that are essential to salvation and holiness in that Scripture is the final authority unto itself and thus is self-interpreting in these matters.
Then why does the Bible tell us that God gives us prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to perfect the saints, for the work of the ministry and edifying of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11, 12)? If everyone can understand the Bible on their own, why are prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers necessary?
Declaring that the Bible is self-interpreting nullifies sola scriptura. Setting up parameters by which the Bible can be interpreted is in itself an act of interpretation- you are declaring that the Bible cannot mean anything that something other that the Bible itself says; sola scriptura is set on a foundation that goes outside of Scripture, i.e., the person who sets up the parameters for interpretation.
If the Bible is self-interpreting, then there is no mechanism by which someone who has a false interpretation can be corrected.
Sola Scriptura
I. Scripture is the only complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible authority on the Christian faith.
This places the Bible, i.e., something that has been written, compiled, copied and translated with human input over God because it prevents God from having any further direct face-to-face communication with mankind. This does not mean that the Bible isn’t inspired in its original form or in copies and translations thereof; God has the power to overcome and compensate for mankind’s sinful limitations. But human beings cannot dictate to God by telling Him that He must vest all of His power and authority in the Bible. Nobody who puts restrictions on God can accept God because their starting premise is that God cannot be supreme, omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because He must be subject to His creation.
If the Bible is the only means by which man can experience God, any man that rejects the Bible or has an erroneous knowledge of it cannot be corrected by God.
II. Scripture explains everything necessary for salvation.
If you have to have the Bible to be saved, what happens when people don’t have access to the Bible or have a corrupt version/translation of it? We are saved by faith in the divinity, sinlessness, atoning death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. The Bible must be secondary to faith since people who do not have access to the Bible can still have faith.
III. Scripture explains everything necessary to attain holiness.
Then why are so many “Bible believing†church congregations so full of adultery and lying and thievery and child molestation and so lacking in holiness?
And why do so many of these churches reject the plain words of the Bible when the Bible says that Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem exercised the power to determine Christian doctrine, set standards of Christian behavior and appoint leaders for the local congregations which were not meant to be independent of each other? Scripture itself explains that Scripture is not the sole source of authority for the Church.
People that accept sola scriptura deny the ongoing role of the Holy Ghost. Scripture is of no use to anyone who refuses to turn their life over to God and agree to be lead by the Holy Ghost. Holiness comes from God; Scripture is merely a conduit.
IV. Scripture is the only legitimate source of revelation about God.
The Bible itself states that there are other sources of revelation about the nature and power of God apart from the Bible: Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
V. Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
The Bible never says that everything in it was verbally inspired; very few passages in the Bible begin with God telling someone to write down what God is about to say to them.
VI. Canonization of Scripture came through the passive recognition of books that were already considered to be sacred and authoritative without any reliance on tradition or ecclesiastical authority.
I’ve addressed this already. “Passive recognition†is no different than tradition which violates sola scriptura, and final canonization came due to the Arian heresy when somebody on earth (Athanasius) had to speak with authority to settle the matter.
VII. No specialized training, education or knowledge is necessary to understand the elements of Scripture that are essential to salvation and holiness in that Scripture is the final authority unto itself and thus is self-interpreting in these matters.
Then why does the Bible tell us that God gives us prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to perfect the saints, for the work of the ministry and edifying of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11, 12)? If everyone can understand the Bible on their own, why are prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers necessary?
Declaring that the Bible is self-interpreting nullifies sola scriptura. Setting up parameters by which the Bible can be interpreted is in itself an act of interpretation- you are declaring that the Bible cannot mean anything that something other that the Bible itself says; sola scriptura is set on a foundation that goes outside of Scripture, i.e., the person who sets up the parameters for interpretation.
If the Bible is self-interpreting, then there is no mechanism by which someone who has a false interpretation can be corrected.
By Scripture alone?
Lon;1246738 wrote: I can, but will not.
You can't in other words.
You can't in other words.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246748 wrote: You can't in other words.
The Flat-Earth Bible.
The Flat Earth.
The Flat-Earth Bible.
The Flat Earth.
By Scripture alone?
Lon;1246764 wrote: The Flat-Earth Bible.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â€
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...â€
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...â€
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â€
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...â€
You don’t understand figurative language?
However, even today astronomers do there work as if the earth is fixed and immovable because they view the universe from the earth’s vantage point.
When you want to have a serious conversation, get back with me.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â€
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...â€
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...â€
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â€
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...â€
You don’t understand figurative language?
However, even today astronomers do there work as if the earth is fixed and immovable because they view the universe from the earth’s vantage point.
When you want to have a serious conversation, get back with me.
By Scripture alone?
Lon;1246764 wrote: The Flat Earth.
Aristotle argued for a spherical earth,
As does the Bible:
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
The Book of Job declares that the earth is surrounded by outer space- it cannot be flat. Also, I’ve seen it reported that the area of space directly over the North Pole is remarkably empty of stars- something that likely wasn’t known in ancient times.
Isaiah 40: 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Circle of the earth, i.e., the earth is not flat.
Proverbs 8:27 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
A compass is a tool for drawing and measuring circles.
The gradual disappearance of ships over the horizon, the tops of the sails disappearing last.
Historically speaking ships seldom went over the horizon because sailors tended to stay close to land due to a lack of modern navigation tools. They needed to see landmarks to know where they were. Even into the late Middle Ages European sailors seldom ventured beyond the sight of land.
Proof by elephants: When one travels west from Greece, one finds elephants (African). When one travels east one finds elephants (Asian). Not realizing that these elephants are different kinds, he thought that one was traveling to the same lands by going in opposite directions.
Get real. First of all Africa is south of Greece by water and you have to go southeast to get there by land. And, you can easily tell Asian elephants apart from African elephants by the shape of their ears. And surely the ancients understood that Africa and Asia were connected by what we now call the Sinai Peninsula. It would have been absolute stupidity to think you needed to walk west out of Africa to end up in Asia. Also, there is some speculation that the ancient Egyptians circumnavigated the continent of Africa- so it would have been known by some in the ancient world that there was no land connection between Africa and Asia apart from the Sinai.
Aristotle argued for a spherical earth,
As does the Bible:
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
The Book of Job declares that the earth is surrounded by outer space- it cannot be flat. Also, I’ve seen it reported that the area of space directly over the North Pole is remarkably empty of stars- something that likely wasn’t known in ancient times.
Isaiah 40: 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Circle of the earth, i.e., the earth is not flat.
Proverbs 8:27 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
A compass is a tool for drawing and measuring circles.
The gradual disappearance of ships over the horizon, the tops of the sails disappearing last.
Historically speaking ships seldom went over the horizon because sailors tended to stay close to land due to a lack of modern navigation tools. They needed to see landmarks to know where they were. Even into the late Middle Ages European sailors seldom ventured beyond the sight of land.
Proof by elephants: When one travels west from Greece, one finds elephants (African). When one travels east one finds elephants (Asian). Not realizing that these elephants are different kinds, he thought that one was traveling to the same lands by going in opposite directions.
Get real. First of all Africa is south of Greece by water and you have to go southeast to get there by land. And, you can easily tell Asian elephants apart from African elephants by the shape of their ears. And surely the ancients understood that Africa and Asia were connected by what we now call the Sinai Peninsula. It would have been absolute stupidity to think you needed to walk west out of Africa to end up in Asia. Also, there is some speculation that the ancient Egyptians circumnavigated the continent of Africa- so it would have been known by some in the ancient world that there was no land connection between Africa and Asia apart from the Sinai.
By Scripture alone?
Richard Bell;1246442 wrote: The manual that comes with the washing machine wasn't written by other washing machines 2,000 odd years ago, when washing technology consisted mainly of scrubbing linen robes on flat rocks down by the riverside.
Theology, OTOH...
:yh_rotflWish i'd thought of that response. To continue the analogy I suppose all the different sects are arguing about which rock to use.
posted by hoppy
If you do not believe you will meet your maker, then you need no defense for anything you did.
True. But you miss my point or more likely I put it badly. If you do believe you will meet your maker and have committed murder in the name of your religion because we someone told you it was OK and you would go to heaven regardless who is still the one that is responsible for the action? Whose is the sin (leaving aside for the moment discussions about what a sin is) the one who carried out the act or the one who gave dispensation. were those who did what they were told soldiers of god or deluded in to believing something nonsensical?
The crusader knights were told that killing a muslim was not a sin in the eyes of god and they received papal dispensation, islamic suicide bombers do so willingly believing they will be going straight to heaven as martyrs and killing infidels is blessed by god. Catholics and protestants slaughtered each other in the name of religion and believed they were doing god's work. The guards at the concentration camps went to church on Sunday just like most of the people in Europe at the time. The pope knew and said nothing to stop what was happening. At the end of the day when all these religious people face their maker who was responsible?
The idea that faith alone is sufficient for the salvation of the believer excuses a multitude of sins does it not. Rather than religion providing a bedrock of morality perhaps it gives a way to avoid facing up to what one has done.
posted by fija
My point is valid for the exact reasons you give that it is not. The more sources of authority you have the less likely you will trust any of them. The more sources of authority you have the more likely it will be that they do not agree and the harder it will be for you to trust any of them. In religious matters your source of authority must have a faith component: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.
Following an authority blindly can lead to all sorts of trouble. Not reading other sources because it might lead you to doubt the one you have chosen is precisely why most religious sects prefer their followers not to question their authority. You shouldn't read that because it might lead you to doubt your religion what you have been told and question the leadership is the kind of logic that only the religious can fall for. Yes you must have faith to be religious, blind obedience is essential to a successful religion.
posted by fija
This would depend on what version of Protestantism you follow. I don’t consider myself a Protestant because all denominations (Protestant, Catholic and anything else) are more or less corrupt. In my personal view organized Christianity ceased to be legitimate Christianity when organized Christianity accepted the patronage of Constantine. The Church had legitimate apostolic succession until then meaning the Church was self-correcting. That stopped when Constantine sided with the Arian heretics.
you may not consider yourself one but playing semantics won't get you very far. A protestant is any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church. besides which a key component of protestantism is the doctrine which maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible is the final source of authority for all Christians as opposed to priests reading it to you abd telling you what to believe. I think the doctrine is called sola scriptura. Maybe you should have a look at some other sources.
posted by fija
Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
Not really. You can likely better understand what this person is claiming if you understand what his motivation likely is. His rejection of authority in religious matters likely coincides with his rejection of authority in everything else.
What's that? I take it from that comment you are an american since it seems to be mainly american's that are endeared of libertarianism and love using words like anarchy. The ability to bandy labels about does not necessarily indicate any understanding of what that particular label actually means-as you have just demonstrated
I've not seen you on this forum before, had you been you might have realised it is not a good idea to make assumptions about other posters-at least until you have had the chance to work out where they are coming from and also that the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss with things with people who have different world views from your own. I presume that why you started this thread in the first place. It would be disappointing if you were just another bible thumping religious fundamentalist convinced that quoting bits of the bible will overwhelm all disagreement with your stunning insight. But then I try to avoid making judgements.
posted by aussie pam
Meaning probably we're going ad hominem now.. let's not
No we shouldn't. It usually means you realise you have lost the argument, haven't really thought about it and are getting desperate. So does using the third person rather than addressing directly.
Besides it's not as much fun.
Theology, OTOH...
:yh_rotflWish i'd thought of that response. To continue the analogy I suppose all the different sects are arguing about which rock to use.
posted by hoppy
If you do not believe you will meet your maker, then you need no defense for anything you did.
True. But you miss my point or more likely I put it badly. If you do believe you will meet your maker and have committed murder in the name of your religion because we someone told you it was OK and you would go to heaven regardless who is still the one that is responsible for the action? Whose is the sin (leaving aside for the moment discussions about what a sin is) the one who carried out the act or the one who gave dispensation. were those who did what they were told soldiers of god or deluded in to believing something nonsensical?
The crusader knights were told that killing a muslim was not a sin in the eyes of god and they received papal dispensation, islamic suicide bombers do so willingly believing they will be going straight to heaven as martyrs and killing infidels is blessed by god. Catholics and protestants slaughtered each other in the name of religion and believed they were doing god's work. The guards at the concentration camps went to church on Sunday just like most of the people in Europe at the time. The pope knew and said nothing to stop what was happening. At the end of the day when all these religious people face their maker who was responsible?
The idea that faith alone is sufficient for the salvation of the believer excuses a multitude of sins does it not. Rather than religion providing a bedrock of morality perhaps it gives a way to avoid facing up to what one has done.
posted by fija
My point is valid for the exact reasons you give that it is not. The more sources of authority you have the less likely you will trust any of them. The more sources of authority you have the more likely it will be that they do not agree and the harder it will be for you to trust any of them. In religious matters your source of authority must have a faith component: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.
Following an authority blindly can lead to all sorts of trouble. Not reading other sources because it might lead you to doubt the one you have chosen is precisely why most religious sects prefer their followers not to question their authority. You shouldn't read that because it might lead you to doubt your religion what you have been told and question the leadership is the kind of logic that only the religious can fall for. Yes you must have faith to be religious, blind obedience is essential to a successful religion.
posted by fija
This would depend on what version of Protestantism you follow. I don’t consider myself a Protestant because all denominations (Protestant, Catholic and anything else) are more or less corrupt. In my personal view organized Christianity ceased to be legitimate Christianity when organized Christianity accepted the patronage of Constantine. The Church had legitimate apostolic succession until then meaning the Church was self-correcting. That stopped when Constantine sided with the Arian heretics.
you may not consider yourself one but playing semantics won't get you very far. A protestant is any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church. besides which a key component of protestantism is the doctrine which maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible is the final source of authority for all Christians as opposed to priests reading it to you abd telling you what to believe. I think the doctrine is called sola scriptura. Maybe you should have a look at some other sources.
posted by fija
Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
Not really. You can likely better understand what this person is claiming if you understand what his motivation likely is. His rejection of authority in religious matters likely coincides with his rejection of authority in everything else.
What's that? I take it from that comment you are an american since it seems to be mainly american's that are endeared of libertarianism and love using words like anarchy. The ability to bandy labels about does not necessarily indicate any understanding of what that particular label actually means-as you have just demonstrated
I've not seen you on this forum before, had you been you might have realised it is not a good idea to make assumptions about other posters-at least until you have had the chance to work out where they are coming from and also that the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss with things with people who have different world views from your own. I presume that why you started this thread in the first place. It would be disappointing if you were just another bible thumping religious fundamentalist convinced that quoting bits of the bible will overwhelm all disagreement with your stunning insight. But then I try to avoid making judgements.
posted by aussie pam
Meaning probably we're going ad hominem now.. let's not
No we shouldn't. It usually means you realise you have lost the argument, haven't really thought about it and are getting desperate. So does using the third person rather than addressing directly.
Besides it's not as much fun.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246650 wrote: Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
This is a bit like watching someone set up a coconut on a tripod, offering the ball round for a few throws and then saying hah, watch me, I can get it off whenever I fancy. It's not quite sporting when it's your own coconut and you spent ages practicing before you set it up in public.
Your sola Scriptura is a series of dogmatic assertions which are self-evidently untestable. As such it's a matter of mere belief as to whether someone chooses to accept them as axiomatic or rejects them as irrelevant. To a believer they're important, to a non-believer they're more so-whattish. Of course, if God suddenly chose to provide both incontrovertable proof of his omnipotent powers and confirmation that the dogmatic assertions of sola Scriptura are true statements then accepting the axioms has some reasonable basis beyond an exercise of the will.
What is authority? The imposition of a set of penalties. Does it constrain a person to think in a particular way? Not at all. Authority can imprison or destroy the body but it has no power whatever over the person's opinion. Authority can impose penalties on an act but it can't prevent the act itself. It can try to impose a penalty on opinion too if it feels particularly intrusive but it can't prevent the opinion. To that extent, authority is a damp squib.
To consider the value of adopting the sola Scriptura as an axiom one needs to look at the set of people who have adopted it and ask "Do I want to be like them or do I not". They may, for example, as they claim, be the only set of people who will enjoy eternal bliss safe in the arms of Jesus, that's neither here nor there. As it happens I have no desire whatever to enjoy eternal bliss safe in the arms of Jesus, I'd rather carve my initials on His chest with a rusty chisel. What matters is whether I would like my life to mirror the lives of those who have adopted the sola Scriptura as an axiom. When put in those terms, and watching the antics of the set of people concerned, I think the answer's pretty clear.
On the other hand one can look at other sets of people within the Christian tradition and say hey, neat lives, I'd be a far better person if I lived according to their precepts and acted as they act. And so one can improve. The chance of these sets including those who have adopted the sola Scriptura as an axiom is pretty slender. As is the chance of them including those who have adopted the prima Scriptura as an axiom too, come to think of it.
This is a bit like watching someone set up a coconut on a tripod, offering the ball round for a few throws and then saying hah, watch me, I can get it off whenever I fancy. It's not quite sporting when it's your own coconut and you spent ages practicing before you set it up in public.
Your sola Scriptura is a series of dogmatic assertions which are self-evidently untestable. As such it's a matter of mere belief as to whether someone chooses to accept them as axiomatic or rejects them as irrelevant. To a believer they're important, to a non-believer they're more so-whattish. Of course, if God suddenly chose to provide both incontrovertable proof of his omnipotent powers and confirmation that the dogmatic assertions of sola Scriptura are true statements then accepting the axioms has some reasonable basis beyond an exercise of the will.
What is authority? The imposition of a set of penalties. Does it constrain a person to think in a particular way? Not at all. Authority can imprison or destroy the body but it has no power whatever over the person's opinion. Authority can impose penalties on an act but it can't prevent the act itself. It can try to impose a penalty on opinion too if it feels particularly intrusive but it can't prevent the opinion. To that extent, authority is a damp squib.
To consider the value of adopting the sola Scriptura as an axiom one needs to look at the set of people who have adopted it and ask "Do I want to be like them or do I not". They may, for example, as they claim, be the only set of people who will enjoy eternal bliss safe in the arms of Jesus, that's neither here nor there. As it happens I have no desire whatever to enjoy eternal bliss safe in the arms of Jesus, I'd rather carve my initials on His chest with a rusty chisel. What matters is whether I would like my life to mirror the lives of those who have adopted the sola Scriptura as an axiom. When put in those terms, and watching the antics of the set of people concerned, I think the answer's pretty clear.
On the other hand one can look at other sets of people within the Christian tradition and say hey, neat lives, I'd be a far better person if I lived according to their precepts and acted as they act. And so one can improve. The chance of these sets including those who have adopted the sola Scriptura as an axiom is pretty slender. As is the chance of them including those who have adopted the prima Scriptura as an axiom too, come to think of it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246496 wrote: The rejection of authority apart from the individual and the philosophy “if it feels good, do it†is anarchy.
Not so, it is not a rejection of teaching it is a rejection of intermediation - no man stands between me and my God. It's called taking responsibility for your belief and relying on God to show you the way - or do you not believe Him capable of that?
Not so, it is not a rejection of teaching it is a rejection of intermediation - no man stands between me and my God. It's called taking responsibility for your belief and relying on God to show you the way - or do you not believe Him capable of that?
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246650 wrote:
Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
Goodbye - total and utter ignorance deserves no company.
Or, you are simply running away with your tail between your legs. You shouldn’t waste people’s time by saying something that you are unwilling or unable to back up.
Goodbye - total and utter ignorance deserves no company.
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1246859 wrote: If you do believe you will meet your maker and have committed murder in the name of your religion because we someone told you it was OK and you would go to heaven regardless who is still the one that is responsible for the action?
The Germans that issued the orders to the SS to kill the Jews are not equally guilty of killing the Jews? If you hire a hit man do you bear no responsibility for the hit man’s crime?
The crusader knights were told that killing a muslim was not a sin in the eyes of god and they received papal dispensation, islamic suicide bombers do so willingly believing they will be going straight to heaven as martyrs and killing infidels is blessed by god. Catholics and protestants slaughtered each other in the name of religion and believed they were doing god's work. The guards at the concentration camps went to church on Sunday just like most of the people in Europe at the time. The pope knew and said nothing to stop what was happening. At the end of the day when all these religious people face their maker who was responsible?
Why is it that evil actions done in the name of a particular religion are automatically the fault of the religion rather than its adherents? First you imply that people who commit evil at the behest of another (Pope, Muhamad, Luther etcetera) are the only people guilty for the actions, but now you want to say the opposite- that it is religion that is evil rather than the people who do things in the name of religion? Make up your mind.
The idea that faith alone is sufficient for the salvation of the believer excuses a multitude of sins does it not.
Only to the extent that you stop sinning.
Following an authority blindly can lead to all sorts of trouble.
When have I said anything about following an authority blindly? Hasn’t my whole purpose here been to question the practice of following Scripture blindly?
Not reading other sources because it might lead you to doubt the one you have chosen is precisely why most religious sects prefer their followers not to question their authority.
But if you never come to accept authority your faith must be of no effect. You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong. As long as you consult multiple sources of authority there is no source that you accept.
A protestant is any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
And just on whose authority do you base this definition? And who in Hell are you to dictate to me what I can and cannot believe? If I don’t consider myself to be a Protestant, what gives you the right or the authority to say I am a Protestant anyway?
Furthermore, Baptists are neither Roman Catholic, Anglican or Eastern Orthodox (which isn’t really a branch of Western Christianity as you claim), but some Baptists claim that Baptists originated in Apostolic times and thus predate Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and the Protestant Reformation. So not all Baptists consider themselves to be Protestant.
besides which a key component of protestantism is the doctrine which maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible is the final source of authority for all Christians as opposed to priests reading it to you abd telling you what to believe.
A key component of Protestantism by whose authority?
What's that? I take it from that comment you are an american since it seems to be mainly american's that are endeared of libertarianism and love using words like anarchy.
So you think you can call me a Protestant because by your standards you think I act like one, when I am not entitled to call you a libertarian when by my standards you act like one?
The ability to bandy labels about does not necessarily indicate any understanding of what that particular label actually means-as you have just demonstrated
But yet you think yourself entitled to bandy about the label Protestant?
The Germans that issued the orders to the SS to kill the Jews are not equally guilty of killing the Jews? If you hire a hit man do you bear no responsibility for the hit man’s crime?
The crusader knights were told that killing a muslim was not a sin in the eyes of god and they received papal dispensation, islamic suicide bombers do so willingly believing they will be going straight to heaven as martyrs and killing infidels is blessed by god. Catholics and protestants slaughtered each other in the name of religion and believed they were doing god's work. The guards at the concentration camps went to church on Sunday just like most of the people in Europe at the time. The pope knew and said nothing to stop what was happening. At the end of the day when all these religious people face their maker who was responsible?
Why is it that evil actions done in the name of a particular religion are automatically the fault of the religion rather than its adherents? First you imply that people who commit evil at the behest of another (Pope, Muhamad, Luther etcetera) are the only people guilty for the actions, but now you want to say the opposite- that it is religion that is evil rather than the people who do things in the name of religion? Make up your mind.
The idea that faith alone is sufficient for the salvation of the believer excuses a multitude of sins does it not.
Only to the extent that you stop sinning.
Following an authority blindly can lead to all sorts of trouble.
When have I said anything about following an authority blindly? Hasn’t my whole purpose here been to question the practice of following Scripture blindly?
Not reading other sources because it might lead you to doubt the one you have chosen is precisely why most religious sects prefer their followers not to question their authority.
But if you never come to accept authority your faith must be of no effect. You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong. As long as you consult multiple sources of authority there is no source that you accept.
A protestant is any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
And just on whose authority do you base this definition? And who in Hell are you to dictate to me what I can and cannot believe? If I don’t consider myself to be a Protestant, what gives you the right or the authority to say I am a Protestant anyway?
Furthermore, Baptists are neither Roman Catholic, Anglican or Eastern Orthodox (which isn’t really a branch of Western Christianity as you claim), but some Baptists claim that Baptists originated in Apostolic times and thus predate Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and the Protestant Reformation. So not all Baptists consider themselves to be Protestant.
besides which a key component of protestantism is the doctrine which maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible is the final source of authority for all Christians as opposed to priests reading it to you abd telling you what to believe.
A key component of Protestantism by whose authority?
What's that? I take it from that comment you are an american since it seems to be mainly american's that are endeared of libertarianism and love using words like anarchy.
So you think you can call me a Protestant because by your standards you think I act like one, when I am not entitled to call you a libertarian when by my standards you act like one?
The ability to bandy labels about does not necessarily indicate any understanding of what that particular label actually means-as you have just demonstrated
But yet you think yourself entitled to bandy about the label Protestant?
By Scripture alone?
spot;1246863 wrote: Your sola Scriptura is a series of dogmatic assertions which are self-evidently untestable.
Go back and actually read my first post here. It is not my sola scriptura. The dogma that I posted is based on research as much as it is my personal beliefs. I wanted to make sure that I had an accurate idea about what sola scriptura is before I offered my critique of it.
Go back and actually read my first post here. It is not my sola scriptura. The dogma that I posted is based on research as much as it is my personal beliefs. I wanted to make sure that I had an accurate idea about what sola scriptura is before I offered my critique of it.
By Scripture alone?
Bryn Mawr;1246956 wrote: Not so, it is not a rejection of teaching it is a rejection of intermediation - no man stands between me and my God. It's called taking responsibility for your belief and relying on God to show you the way - or do you not believe Him capable of that?
If nothing can stand between you and your god, how does your god communicate with you? If there is no power or authority on earth that can tell you that what you believe about your god is wrong, how does your god communicate with you to let you know you are wrong? If there is no mechanism by which your god can exercise his (or do you prefer her?) authority in a manner that you will accept, you are rejecting your god’s authority and thus have swerved into anarchy.
If nothing can stand between you and your god, how does your god communicate with you? If there is no power or authority on earth that can tell you that what you believe about your god is wrong, how does your god communicate with you to let you know you are wrong? If there is no mechanism by which your god can exercise his (or do you prefer her?) authority in a manner that you will accept, you are rejecting your god’s authority and thus have swerved into anarchy.
By Scripture alone?
Bryn Mawr;1246957 wrote: Goodbye - total and utter ignorance deserves no company.
Nice. You claim to be a Christian and say I am ignorant because I don’t believe what you believe. But if your Christianity is valid and I am wrong, don’t you have an obligation to present the Gospel of Christ to me (Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen)? Instead of presenting the Gospel of Christ to me when you think my understanding of it is faulty, you get insulting and then run away.
Nice. You claim to be a Christian and say I am ignorant because I don’t believe what you believe. But if your Christianity is valid and I am wrong, don’t you have an obligation to present the Gospel of Christ to me (Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen)? Instead of presenting the Gospel of Christ to me when you think my understanding of it is faulty, you get insulting and then run away.
By Scripture alone?
posted by fija
The Germans that issued the orders to the SS to kill the Jews are not equally guilty of killing the Jews? If you hire a hit man do you bear no responsibility for the hit man’s crime?
Of course they are. The point is that the hit man (or the ss guards) cannot claim in his defence he was just following orders. he is responsible for choosing to obey
posted by fija
Why is it that evil actions done in the name of a particular religion are automatically the fault of the religion rather than its adherents? First you imply that people who commit evil at the behest of another (Pope, Muhamad, Luther etcetera) are the only people guilty for the actions, but now you want to say the opposite- that it is religion that is evil rather than the people who do things in the name of religion? Make up your mind.
Again you miss the point. The person carrying out an act is responsible for it no one else. If an islamic suicide bomber kills himself in the name of his religion and takes some infidels with him thus ensuring his path to heaven-well perhaps if he had questioned the authority of those telling him what to believe he might have chosen differently. If he had had less faith he might have chosen differently. The adherents choose to obey without question because they accept without question the authority of those telling them it is OK. Those who follow a religion accept the authority if that religion and give up their right to question it.
posted by fija
When have I said anything about following an authority blindly? Hasn’t my whole purpose here been to question the practice of following Scripture blindly?
posted by fija earlier
The more sources of authority you have the less likely you will trust any of them. The more sources of authority you have the more likely it will be that they do not agree and the harder it will be for you to trust any of them. In religious matters your source of authority must have a faith component: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.
Perhaps not trusting any of them might have been the more sensible choice for the suicide bomber. You can't have it both ways and say you are questioning the practice of following scripture blindly and then also argue you must have faith and not question it.
posted by fija
And just on whose authority do you base this definition? And who in Hell are you to dictate to me what I can and cannot believe? If I don’t consider myself to be a Protestant, what gives you the right or the authority to say I am a Protestant anyway?
You do like authority don't you. Believe what you like but you are the one that started this thread. Not being religious I would not try and dictate to you what you can and cannot believe, indeed as a free thinker I would advocate you learn to think for yourself instead of seeking out an authority to tell you what you should believe.
I am trying to decide what I believe about sola Scriptura, i.e., the total and exclusive reliance on Scripture. But first I need to determine exactly what sola Scriptura is and is not. I’ll give here what I have found so far. Please let me know if I have left anything out or have something that is not part of sola Scriptura.
why did you ask the question if you were not curious what other people thought?
The term protestant has a very clear historical origin and relates to protesting against malpractices and false doctrines of the catholic church.
from the oxford english dictionary
Protestant
/prottistnt/
• noun a member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation.
The basic tenet of the movement was that the bible is the source of authority for all Christians and and not the pope and priests. When common language copies of the bible became available it broke the power of the church to control ordinary people. When you can read the gospels for yourself you can spot when the priest is interpreting things up to suit his purposes.
If you like my authority to call you a protestant is that you clearly match the definition of what a protestant is-christian but not catholic-moreover you raise an issue that was at the very heart of the protestant reformation and that led to centuries of bloodshed as the two sides fought out their differences. At the very least I would have thought you would have been aware of how the concept of sola scripture came about.
posted by fija
So you think you can call me a Protestant because by your standards you think I act like one, when I am not entitled to call you a libertarian when by my standards you act like one?
Not by my standards but because protestant has a very clear meaning in the English language and you ask a question about something that is at the heart of protestantism. You may not like the word but if you are Christian and not catholic you are a protestant. Why does it upset you to be called a protestant anyway?
posted by fija
But if you never come to accept authority your faith must be of no effect. You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong. As long as you consult multiple sources of authority there is no source that you accept.
As I said earlier I am not trying to tell you what to believe or not to believe. Make up your own mind, finding an authority you can follow is not a course in would advocate.
posted by fija
So you think you can call me a Protestant because by your standards you think I act like one, when I am not entitled to call you a libertarian when by my standards you act like one?
I haven't a clue what your standards are any more than you have any kind of clue what my political viewpoints may or may not be. I can justify calling you a protestant-which incidentally I don't consider an insult and it wasn't intended as such. You show a lack of understanding as to what the term actually means and the social and political upheaval upheaval the protestant reformation caused that echo right down to today. Sola scriptura was smack bang in the middle of it all. surely you were aware of that?
It does appear that you consider calling someone a libertarian a devastating insult that renders anything they might to say thereafter to be something that will be dismissed as of little substance. What do you think a libertarian is and how, in the space of two posts, have you decided that I am one? What possible relevance does it have to this thread?
It seems to me that before you settle on an authority you can accept you should look at a few more.
posted by fija
Good point. Consulting too many authorities can easily lead to accepting no authority at all.
But if you haven't looked at as many as possible the how do you know you have the right one? you may indeed end up not accepting any of them but why does that frighten you?
I am trying to decide what I believe about sola Scriptura,
I'll repeat my question. If you didn't want to hear differing viewpoints why did you ask? Why are you trying to be disparaging of those differing viewpoints-if indeed you are.
The Germans that issued the orders to the SS to kill the Jews are not equally guilty of killing the Jews? If you hire a hit man do you bear no responsibility for the hit man’s crime?
Of course they are. The point is that the hit man (or the ss guards) cannot claim in his defence he was just following orders. he is responsible for choosing to obey
posted by fija
Why is it that evil actions done in the name of a particular religion are automatically the fault of the religion rather than its adherents? First you imply that people who commit evil at the behest of another (Pope, Muhamad, Luther etcetera) are the only people guilty for the actions, but now you want to say the opposite- that it is religion that is evil rather than the people who do things in the name of religion? Make up your mind.
Again you miss the point. The person carrying out an act is responsible for it no one else. If an islamic suicide bomber kills himself in the name of his religion and takes some infidels with him thus ensuring his path to heaven-well perhaps if he had questioned the authority of those telling him what to believe he might have chosen differently. If he had had less faith he might have chosen differently. The adherents choose to obey without question because they accept without question the authority of those telling them it is OK. Those who follow a religion accept the authority if that religion and give up their right to question it.
posted by fija
When have I said anything about following an authority blindly? Hasn’t my whole purpose here been to question the practice of following Scripture blindly?
posted by fija earlier
The more sources of authority you have the less likely you will trust any of them. The more sources of authority you have the more likely it will be that they do not agree and the harder it will be for you to trust any of them. In religious matters your source of authority must have a faith component: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.
Perhaps not trusting any of them might have been the more sensible choice for the suicide bomber. You can't have it both ways and say you are questioning the practice of following scripture blindly and then also argue you must have faith and not question it.
posted by fija
And just on whose authority do you base this definition? And who in Hell are you to dictate to me what I can and cannot believe? If I don’t consider myself to be a Protestant, what gives you the right or the authority to say I am a Protestant anyway?
You do like authority don't you. Believe what you like but you are the one that started this thread. Not being religious I would not try and dictate to you what you can and cannot believe, indeed as a free thinker I would advocate you learn to think for yourself instead of seeking out an authority to tell you what you should believe.
I am trying to decide what I believe about sola Scriptura, i.e., the total and exclusive reliance on Scripture. But first I need to determine exactly what sola Scriptura is and is not. I’ll give here what I have found so far. Please let me know if I have left anything out or have something that is not part of sola Scriptura.
why did you ask the question if you were not curious what other people thought?
The term protestant has a very clear historical origin and relates to protesting against malpractices and false doctrines of the catholic church.
from the oxford english dictionary
Protestant
/prottistnt/
• noun a member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation.
The basic tenet of the movement was that the bible is the source of authority for all Christians and and not the pope and priests. When common language copies of the bible became available it broke the power of the church to control ordinary people. When you can read the gospels for yourself you can spot when the priest is interpreting things up to suit his purposes.
If you like my authority to call you a protestant is that you clearly match the definition of what a protestant is-christian but not catholic-moreover you raise an issue that was at the very heart of the protestant reformation and that led to centuries of bloodshed as the two sides fought out their differences. At the very least I would have thought you would have been aware of how the concept of sola scripture came about.
posted by fija
So you think you can call me a Protestant because by your standards you think I act like one, when I am not entitled to call you a libertarian when by my standards you act like one?
Not by my standards but because protestant has a very clear meaning in the English language and you ask a question about something that is at the heart of protestantism. You may not like the word but if you are Christian and not catholic you are a protestant. Why does it upset you to be called a protestant anyway?
posted by fija
But if you never come to accept authority your faith must be of no effect. You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong. As long as you consult multiple sources of authority there is no source that you accept.
As I said earlier I am not trying to tell you what to believe or not to believe. Make up your own mind, finding an authority you can follow is not a course in would advocate.
posted by fija
So you think you can call me a Protestant because by your standards you think I act like one, when I am not entitled to call you a libertarian when by my standards you act like one?
I haven't a clue what your standards are any more than you have any kind of clue what my political viewpoints may or may not be. I can justify calling you a protestant-which incidentally I don't consider an insult and it wasn't intended as such. You show a lack of understanding as to what the term actually means and the social and political upheaval upheaval the protestant reformation caused that echo right down to today. Sola scriptura was smack bang in the middle of it all. surely you were aware of that?
It does appear that you consider calling someone a libertarian a devastating insult that renders anything they might to say thereafter to be something that will be dismissed as of little substance. What do you think a libertarian is and how, in the space of two posts, have you decided that I am one? What possible relevance does it have to this thread?
It seems to me that before you settle on an authority you can accept you should look at a few more.
posted by fija
Good point. Consulting too many authorities can easily lead to accepting no authority at all.
But if you haven't looked at as many as possible the how do you know you have the right one? you may indeed end up not accepting any of them but why does that frighten you?
I am trying to decide what I believe about sola Scriptura,
I'll repeat my question. If you didn't want to hear differing viewpoints why did you ask? Why are you trying to be disparaging of those differing viewpoints-if indeed you are.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1246980 wrote: Go back and actually read my first post here. It is not my sola scriptura. The dogma that I posted is based on research as much as it is my personal beliefs. I wanted to make sure that I had an accurate idea about what sola scriptura is before I offered my critique of it.Don't let it worry you, getting an agreed vocabulary is half the battle when you arrive on a new board. "Your" was (I thought fairly evidently, given the context) "the sola scriptura you introduced in the first post of the thread". You made it quite clear subsequently that you were tending toward rejecting it in favour of "your" other definition in "leaning more and more towards prima scriptura". It's a pity you sidestepped everything I wrote, it all applies equally well to either and it's not a bad statement of why both can sensibly be rejected.
flja;1246982 wrote: If nothing can stand between you and your god, how does your god communicate with you? If there is no power or authority on earth that can tell you that what you believe about your god is wrong, how does your god communicate with you to let you know you are wrong? If there is no mechanism by which your god can exercise his (or do you prefer her?) authority in a manner that you will accept, you are rejecting your god’s authority and thus have swerved into anarchy.God and I converse daily. Again we're down to vocabulary but that sentence makes accurate and honest sense to me. You appear to stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word though it's something of a one-way channel, I hope you've established the up-link too. Personally I reckon the Bible's a combined partial (as in not impartial) account of the myths and history of the tribes which came out of Babylon, compiled (other than the Maccabees and New Testament) over the following century. It's no more or less the Word of God than, say, The Book Of Mormon is. For the in-crowd it has to be, in the same way the other is for most Mormons, with just as much "reason".
flja;1246982 wrote: If nothing can stand between you and your god, how does your god communicate with you? If there is no power or authority on earth that can tell you that what you believe about your god is wrong, how does your god communicate with you to let you know you are wrong? If there is no mechanism by which your god can exercise his (or do you prefer her?) authority in a manner that you will accept, you are rejecting your god’s authority and thus have swerved into anarchy.God and I converse daily. Again we're down to vocabulary but that sentence makes accurate and honest sense to me. You appear to stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word though it's something of a one-way channel, I hope you've established the up-link too. Personally I reckon the Bible's a combined partial (as in not impartial) account of the myths and history of the tribes which came out of Babylon, compiled (other than the Maccabees and New Testament) over the following century. It's no more or less the Word of God than, say, The Book Of Mormon is. For the in-crowd it has to be, in the same way the other is for most Mormons, with just as much "reason".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1247015 wrote: posted by fija
Of course they are. The point is that the hit man (or the ss guards) cannot claim in his defence he was just following orders. he is responsible for choosing to obey
I never said “I was only following orders†is a legitimate defense of evil behavior. But unlike you, I don’t see “I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise†as a legitimate justification for doing evil. The SS committed unspeakable evil because it was just following orders, but Hitler issued those orders because he thought it was right to do so and there was no authority which he felt bound to answer to. You have rejected one extreme only to embrace another.
Again you miss the point. The person carrying out an act is responsible for it no one else.[/quote[]
Then why is conspiracy a crime?
Of course they are. The point is that the hit man (or the ss guards) cannot claim in his defence he was just following orders. he is responsible for choosing to obey
I never said “I was only following orders†is a legitimate defense of evil behavior. But unlike you, I don’t see “I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise†as a legitimate justification for doing evil. The SS committed unspeakable evil because it was just following orders, but Hitler issued those orders because he thought it was right to do so and there was no authority which he felt bound to answer to. You have rejected one extreme only to embrace another.
Again you miss the point. The person carrying out an act is responsible for it no one else.[/quote[]
Then why is conspiracy a crime?
By Scripture alone?
spot;1247035 wrote: It's a pity you sidestepped everything I wrote, it all applies equally well to either and it's not a bad statement of why both can sensibly be rejected.
Is there anything not of your own device and design that you accept as having authority over your beliefs and conduct? If not, any discussion with you about Scripture is moot. I came here to discuss the components of sola scriptura, not whether or not those components are legitimate beliefs. When no one here bothered to add to or take from what I posted I began discussing the merits of the components. The question of sola scriptura ultimately comes down to what you accept as having authority. I am not willing to place all authority in the Bible apart from nature, history, church tradition and current interaction with the Holy Ghost, but I don’t see any point in discussing the issue with people that refuse to submit to any authority at all.
You appear to stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word though it's something of a one-way channel, I hope you've established the up-link too.
How can you say this when I have said that I am more prima scriptura than sola scriptura (based on my understanding of the latter)? If the Bible is not my sole source of authority, the Bible is not my only link to God.
Is there anything not of your own device and design that you accept as having authority over your beliefs and conduct? If not, any discussion with you about Scripture is moot. I came here to discuss the components of sola scriptura, not whether or not those components are legitimate beliefs. When no one here bothered to add to or take from what I posted I began discussing the merits of the components. The question of sola scriptura ultimately comes down to what you accept as having authority. I am not willing to place all authority in the Bible apart from nature, history, church tradition and current interaction with the Holy Ghost, but I don’t see any point in discussing the issue with people that refuse to submit to any authority at all.
You appear to stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word though it's something of a one-way channel, I hope you've established the up-link too.
How can you say this when I have said that I am more prima scriptura than sola scriptura (based on my understanding of the latter)? If the Bible is not my sole source of authority, the Bible is not my only link to God.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1247046 wrote: Is there anything not of your own device and design that you accept as having authority over your beliefs and conduct?I did answer that - "What is authority? The imposition of a set of penalties". Obviously I'm subject to them just as everyone else is. Were I to join a church which demanded I accept some elements of their dogma then obviously I'd accept them as a condition of joining but I can't see that ever happening. Does that prevent me from being a Christian? Not from my viewpoint it doesn't. If I ever meet the Risen Jesus in the flesh I'll do my best to beat the Bugger's brains out but I don't think that's going to happen either. Take it from me though, I'll be incandescently annoyed if it does.
flja wrote: [quote=spot]You appear to stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word though it's something of a one-way channel, How can you say this when I have said that I am more prima scriptura than sola scriptura (based on my understanding of the latter)? If the Bible is not my sole source of authority, the Bible is not my only link to God.[/QUOTE]Who said sole source of authority? Either you stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word or you don't, I reasonably interpret "nature, history, church tradition and current interaction with the Holy Ghost" as standing in need of the Bible to hear God's Word. I'm nowhere saying you appear to have no other mode of access.
As to whether the Bible's something of a one-way channel, I think you'd need to explain how one might use it to speak to God if you think otherwise.
The Bible's no more or less the Word of God than, say, The Book Of Mormon is. For the in-crowd it has to be, in the same way the other is for most Mormons, with just as much "reason". What distinguishes your belief from theirs? By what process can you say the Mormon revelation is based on falsity and lies while yours is based on the true revelation of God?
flja wrote: [quote=spot]You appear to stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word though it's something of a one-way channel, How can you say this when I have said that I am more prima scriptura than sola scriptura (based on my understanding of the latter)? If the Bible is not my sole source of authority, the Bible is not my only link to God.[/QUOTE]Who said sole source of authority? Either you stand in need of the Bible to hear God's Word or you don't, I reasonably interpret "nature, history, church tradition and current interaction with the Holy Ghost" as standing in need of the Bible to hear God's Word. I'm nowhere saying you appear to have no other mode of access.
As to whether the Bible's something of a one-way channel, I think you'd need to explain how one might use it to speak to God if you think otherwise.
The Bible's no more or less the Word of God than, say, The Book Of Mormon is. For the in-crowd it has to be, in the same way the other is for most Mormons, with just as much "reason". What distinguishes your belief from theirs? By what process can you say the Mormon revelation is based on falsity and lies while yours is based on the true revelation of God?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
By Scripture alone?
posted by fija
I never said “I was only following orders†is a legitimate defense of evil behavior. But unlike you, I don’t see “I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise†as a legitimate justification for doing evil. The SS committed unspeakable evil because it was just following orders, but Hitler issued those orders because he thought it was right to do so and there was no authority which he felt bound to answer to. You have rejected one extreme only to embrace another.
I never said "I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise ". What i said was "I did what I thought was the right thing thing" is a better defence than "I did what someone told me was the right thing" At least you are not trying ton escape responsibility for your actions by blaming someone else or something whose authority you accepted. It's a more honest defence whether it's much better is perhaps a moot point.
If someone commits an atrocity and uses for their defence the excuse I was only following orders it is a way of dodging responsibility for the action. At the end of the day they chose to follow that order. It is not accepted as a defence in international law the principle being established at the Nuremberg trials. We make a distinction between the deliberate slaughter of people in the name of genocide and the deliberate slaughter of people to win a war.
If a a suicide bomber sets out to sent himself to heaven by killing infidels believing he is will go to heaven because it was an act of faith he is still responsible for that action because he chose to carry it out even if his religion let him to believe it was an act of faith. If a catholic sets fire to a heretic to save his soul he is still guilty even though he believed it was an act of faith. God will be my judge and repenting sins has been a cop out for accepting responsibility for religious fundamentalists of all stripes. Following religious authority without question often leads to atrocity just as readily as following a political authority blindly can do the same. At the heart of anti-semitism was a religious justification that they were somehow sub-human- not quite right because they crucified jesus. Faith caused people not to question what they were taught was the right thing to believe that's why church and the political establishment nave always held hands one gives the other spiritual authority as well as temporal. You might question the latter but if you worry about your immortal soul you are less likely to rebel against those anointed to rule over you. You have a habit of obedience that is hard to break. Fortunately we live in a time when the authority of the churches on society are on the wane. That's why you can choose to worship as you please it's because you live in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed in your constitution a state religion would inevitably try and impose itself on every aspect of your life.
Then why is conspiracy a crime?
Just as the one following orders cannot escape responsibility for his actions the one giving the order cannot defend himself by saying he didn't do it. We view conspiracy as a crime because we recognise influencing someone to do something is equally wrong as the act itself. Surely you don't need me to explain that to you?
To use suicide bombers again, if the bomber is culpable is not then the religious leaders who persuaded them? Note I said religious leaders not the religion. Does an insane belief in your god given right to do as you will somehow make it OK?
If every human is an authority unto himself, then no authority is ever possible. The existence of authority in some form or another is a fact of life. Get over it.
We all accept the existence and right of authority to impact on our lives and reserve the right to exercise authority over others in some circumstances. temporal authority is by negotiation and consensus only religious authority and those who would wield it claims the right god given right to be imposed on others as it's justification.
If a fundamentalist christian beats up a homosexual is his belief that the other's lifestyle was an abomination justification and was it the homosexuals fault for provoking him by existing? Do we hold him accountable or blame his blind adherence to an authority.
Who gets to decide what that authority is?
If it's not the individual then who or what.
If that authority is viewed as infallible then what if it is actually wrong.
It always comes back to the individual to make up his or hers own mind. You profess a concept where it is the individual who finds his own way to god-you become your own authority by reading the bible for yourself
popsted by fija
But if you never come to accept authority your faith must be of no effect. You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong. As long as you consult multiple sources of authority there is no source that you accept.
I don't have any faith and I refuse to accept the right of those that do to impose their faith on others. Paradoxically I would protest their right to believe as they will. All society is compromise and learning to live together despite differences. Those who reserve the right to tell others who believe otherwise they are wrong are a destructive force. Arguably religion is one of the most destructive although political belief has it's moments if it's adherents acquire a religious fervour and insist only their version of the particular philosophy is the correct one and have their leaders telling them the way. (see naziism and russian communism. )
You can never be free in a society ruled by religion because it will always try and eny the right of non believers to point out it is a load of rubbish. On the other hand the religious will always have freedom in a secular society for the very reason you see as a flaw You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong.
You might try and persuade people but you are not going to tell them because they have to make up their own mind. As it happens I do not accept the authority of the bible as the word of god, perhaps if you studied a bit more and not just the bible you might not either.
I never said “I was only following orders†is a legitimate defense of evil behavior. But unlike you, I don’t see “I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise†as a legitimate justification for doing evil. The SS committed unspeakable evil because it was just following orders, but Hitler issued those orders because he thought it was right to do so and there was no authority which he felt bound to answer to. You have rejected one extreme only to embrace another.
I never said "I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise ". What i said was "I did what I thought was the right thing thing" is a better defence than "I did what someone told me was the right thing" At least you are not trying ton escape responsibility for your actions by blaming someone else or something whose authority you accepted. It's a more honest defence whether it's much better is perhaps a moot point.
If someone commits an atrocity and uses for their defence the excuse I was only following orders it is a way of dodging responsibility for the action. At the end of the day they chose to follow that order. It is not accepted as a defence in international law the principle being established at the Nuremberg trials. We make a distinction between the deliberate slaughter of people in the name of genocide and the deliberate slaughter of people to win a war.
If a a suicide bomber sets out to sent himself to heaven by killing infidels believing he is will go to heaven because it was an act of faith he is still responsible for that action because he chose to carry it out even if his religion let him to believe it was an act of faith. If a catholic sets fire to a heretic to save his soul he is still guilty even though he believed it was an act of faith. God will be my judge and repenting sins has been a cop out for accepting responsibility for religious fundamentalists of all stripes. Following religious authority without question often leads to atrocity just as readily as following a political authority blindly can do the same. At the heart of anti-semitism was a religious justification that they were somehow sub-human- not quite right because they crucified jesus. Faith caused people not to question what they were taught was the right thing to believe that's why church and the political establishment nave always held hands one gives the other spiritual authority as well as temporal. You might question the latter but if you worry about your immortal soul you are less likely to rebel against those anointed to rule over you. You have a habit of obedience that is hard to break. Fortunately we live in a time when the authority of the churches on society are on the wane. That's why you can choose to worship as you please it's because you live in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed in your constitution a state religion would inevitably try and impose itself on every aspect of your life.
Then why is conspiracy a crime?
Just as the one following orders cannot escape responsibility for his actions the one giving the order cannot defend himself by saying he didn't do it. We view conspiracy as a crime because we recognise influencing someone to do something is equally wrong as the act itself. Surely you don't need me to explain that to you?
To use suicide bombers again, if the bomber is culpable is not then the religious leaders who persuaded them? Note I said religious leaders not the religion. Does an insane belief in your god given right to do as you will somehow make it OK?
If every human is an authority unto himself, then no authority is ever possible. The existence of authority in some form or another is a fact of life. Get over it.
We all accept the existence and right of authority to impact on our lives and reserve the right to exercise authority over others in some circumstances. temporal authority is by negotiation and consensus only religious authority and those who would wield it claims the right god given right to be imposed on others as it's justification.
If a fundamentalist christian beats up a homosexual is his belief that the other's lifestyle was an abomination justification and was it the homosexuals fault for provoking him by existing? Do we hold him accountable or blame his blind adherence to an authority.
Who gets to decide what that authority is?
If it's not the individual then who or what.
If that authority is viewed as infallible then what if it is actually wrong.
It always comes back to the individual to make up his or hers own mind. You profess a concept where it is the individual who finds his own way to god-you become your own authority by reading the bible for yourself
popsted by fija
But if you never come to accept authority your faith must be of no effect. You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong. As long as you consult multiple sources of authority there is no source that you accept.
I don't have any faith and I refuse to accept the right of those that do to impose their faith on others. Paradoxically I would protest their right to believe as they will. All society is compromise and learning to live together despite differences. Those who reserve the right to tell others who believe otherwise they are wrong are a destructive force. Arguably religion is one of the most destructive although political belief has it's moments if it's adherents acquire a religious fervour and insist only their version of the particular philosophy is the correct one and have their leaders telling them the way. (see naziism and russian communism. )
You can never be free in a society ruled by religion because it will always try and eny the right of non believers to point out it is a load of rubbish. On the other hand the religious will always have freedom in a secular society for the very reason you see as a flaw You cannot have faith in what you believe if you are unwilling to ever tell people that believe otherwise that they are wrong.
You might try and persuade people but you are not going to tell them because they have to make up their own mind. As it happens I do not accept the authority of the bible as the word of god, perhaps if you studied a bit more and not just the bible you might not either.