spot;1247058 wrote: I did answer that - "What is authority? The imposition of a set of penalties".
It is clear that you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I didn’t ask you what you think authority is. I asked you what authority are you willing to submit to. Someone can easily submit to authority for one reason or another rather than resist it, but submission does not automatically mean acceptance. You can submit to authority and you can be subject to authority without believing that the authority is legitimate (something libertarians do all the time). If you are unwilling to submit to the authority of the Lord God and accept His authority as legitimate, your views on the Bible are of no interest to me as far as a discussion of sola scriptura goes.
By Scripture alone?
By Scripture alone?
flja;1247394 wrote: If you are unwilling to submit to the authority of the Lord God and accept His authority as legitimate, your views on the Bible are of no interest to me as far as a discussion of sola scriptura goes.I shall quietly bow out of your thread then. God is weak, damaged, impotent and in need of all the love and help anyone can provide. Omnipotence, authority and power-talk have no place in Christianity.
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?
Libertarians, at least in England, are generally viewed as far-right wing extremists hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society. I think you'd get closer to your meaning with "libertarian socialists".
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?
Libertarians, at least in England, are generally viewed as far-right wing extremists hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society. I think you'd get closer to your meaning with "libertarian socialists".
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;1247145 wrote: posted by fija
I never said "I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise ".
Yes you did.
In post #5 when you declared, “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.â€
Then in post #6 you were asked, “Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?â€
You answered this question in post #8 when you stated, “Personally I consider ‘I did what I thought was the right thing thing’ is a better defence…â€
It is clear that the only authority you consider to be legitimate is your own.
I never said "I did what I thought was OK because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise ".
Yes you did.
In post #5 when you declared, “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.â€
Then in post #6 you were asked, “Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?â€
You answered this question in post #8 when you stated, “Personally I consider ‘I did what I thought was the right thing thing’ is a better defence…â€
It is clear that the only authority you consider to be legitimate is your own.
By Scripture alone?
spot;1247397 wrote: Omnipotence, authority and power-talk have no place in Christianity.
You, obviously have no place in Heaven.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
You, obviously have no place in Heaven.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
By Scripture alone?
Bless you my son, though you have sinned.
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.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
By Scripture alone?
If I was to understand Christianity through the medium of flja I would regard it as a religion of oppression, of ignorance and of hate. As it all too often was. Check out some of the European religious wars. (Try googling "Thirty Years War")
I don't know what you are trying to do on this thread, but if your intention is to make your sort of Christian look too arrogant to read the responses to their own posts properly, you are succeeding. I see no real difference between you and a Muslim fundamentalist on your posts so far.
Love of your fellows is the important thing. How far are you from love?
I don't know what you are trying to do on this thread, but if your intention is to make your sort of Christian look too arrogant to read the responses to their own posts properly, you are succeeding. I see no real difference between you and a Muslim fundamentalist on your posts so far.
Love of your fellows is the important thing. How far are you from love?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
By Scripture alone?
Gather your computer is on this thread. If you are too, Hello!
One of the most wonderful things I saw recently as I walked to the shops:
Old lady (Jehovah's Witness, if current local form is anything to go by. Get a lot of Mormons too, for some reason. Probably proximity to Heathrow) was preaching on doorstep. Householder (middle aged northern bloke {Lancashire, I think, for any Brit reader}) was was replying as I went by: "Sorry luv. Boot yer preechin an stoony grund". The man was embarrassed that he couldn't help her and was being sooooo gentle. I was very proud of being British at that moment. From both sides of the doorstep.
God is God and we just do our best. Just like the translators and compilers of our Bible.
When you start excluding, when you start judging and condemning - BEWARE.
One of the most wonderful things I saw recently as I walked to the shops:
Old lady (Jehovah's Witness, if current local form is anything to go by. Get a lot of Mormons too, for some reason. Probably proximity to Heathrow) was preaching on doorstep. Householder (middle aged northern bloke {Lancashire, I think, for any Brit reader}) was was replying as I went by: "Sorry luv. Boot yer preechin an stoony grund". The man was embarrassed that he couldn't help her and was being sooooo gentle. I was very proud of being British at that moment. From both sides of the doorstep.
God is God and we just do our best. Just like the translators and compilers of our Bible.
When you start excluding, when you start judging and condemning - BEWARE.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
By Scripture alone?
flja;1247402 wrote: Yes you did.
In post #5 when you declared, “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.â€
Then in post #6 you were asked, “Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?â€
You answered this question in post #8 when you stated, “Personally I consider ‘I did what I thought was the right thing thing’ is a better defence…â€
It is clear that the only authority you consider to be legitimate is your own.
Well yes, and no. Unthinking obedience of an authority is a fools game. Society works best when it is ruled by consensus and people accept the legitimacy of that consensus and the authority it selects. The authority is accepted as legitimate and you abide by it's rulings. I reserve the right to dispute with that authority and if the need arises pick up arms to resist and take the consequences of that resistance.
At the end of the day when you stand before your maker you will answer for what you have done. I did what I thought was the right thing is the only thing you will be able to say because I did what the priest told me was right won't help you-after all you were given free will-you chose to live your life the way you did-accept responsibility for what you do. Ah but then you are a protestant so you won't be listening to priests will you? Submit to the authority of scripture if you will, convince yourself your interpretation is the right one of you will it doesn't absolve you of responsibility if you get it wrong. Feel free to join in tormenting and condemning those who do not conform to what you believe is the right kind of lifestyle or follow the wrong religion. I was convinced I was absolutely right and had no doubts might be a good defence when you face your maker-who knows. But then Christians believe that true repentance gets you in to heaven so what you do on earth doesn't really matter so long as you are really sorry about it.
Religion demands acceptance of it's authority and forces obedience to it's laws when it can't get the acceptance. It's taken centuries of warfare to curb the power of religion and we go backwards at our peril.
Look at your reaction the the replies on this thread-you can't accept others might reject the bible as being a legitimate source of authority and find the notion it is the unchanged word of god ludicrous and are getting angry and abusive.
The difference is in a secular society you can choose to belief what you want. In a society ruled by people like you there would be warfare constantly as you tried to impose your will on others and prevent those who find your beliefs ludicrous from speaking their mind.
posted by spot
Libertarians, at least in England, are generally viewed as far-right wing extremists hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society. I think you'd get closer to your meaning with "libertarian socialists".
Spot's right there, thanks to maggie thatcher who was one of it's advocates right wing nut jobs might be a suitable description.
posted by fija
Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
I've never been called a right wing nutter before. I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or amused, as insults go it's not up to much. I had to look it up to see what he was talking about. If only he had benefited from a liberal education:sneaky:
It's foolish to label people-most are left wing on some things and right wing on others depending on the issue. It seems to be a trait in america that you have to have a label attached to identify yourself and people need to be able to pigeon-hole you and if it's the wrong label what you say is somehow rendered nonsensical.
In post #5 when you declared, “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.â€
Then in post #6 you were asked, “Do you think "I did what felt good to me" is going to be a good enough defense?â€
You answered this question in post #8 when you stated, “Personally I consider ‘I did what I thought was the right thing thing’ is a better defence…â€
It is clear that the only authority you consider to be legitimate is your own.
Well yes, and no. Unthinking obedience of an authority is a fools game. Society works best when it is ruled by consensus and people accept the legitimacy of that consensus and the authority it selects. The authority is accepted as legitimate and you abide by it's rulings. I reserve the right to dispute with that authority and if the need arises pick up arms to resist and take the consequences of that resistance.
At the end of the day when you stand before your maker you will answer for what you have done. I did what I thought was the right thing is the only thing you will be able to say because I did what the priest told me was right won't help you-after all you were given free will-you chose to live your life the way you did-accept responsibility for what you do. Ah but then you are a protestant so you won't be listening to priests will you? Submit to the authority of scripture if you will, convince yourself your interpretation is the right one of you will it doesn't absolve you of responsibility if you get it wrong. Feel free to join in tormenting and condemning those who do not conform to what you believe is the right kind of lifestyle or follow the wrong religion. I was convinced I was absolutely right and had no doubts might be a good defence when you face your maker-who knows. But then Christians believe that true repentance gets you in to heaven so what you do on earth doesn't really matter so long as you are really sorry about it.
Religion demands acceptance of it's authority and forces obedience to it's laws when it can't get the acceptance. It's taken centuries of warfare to curb the power of religion and we go backwards at our peril.
Look at your reaction the the replies on this thread-you can't accept others might reject the bible as being a legitimate source of authority and find the notion it is the unchanged word of god ludicrous and are getting angry and abusive.
The difference is in a secular society you can choose to belief what you want. In a society ruled by people like you there would be warfare constantly as you tried to impose your will on others and prevent those who find your beliefs ludicrous from speaking their mind.
posted by spot
Libertarians, at least in England, are generally viewed as far-right wing extremists hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society. I think you'd get closer to your meaning with "libertarian socialists".
Spot's right there, thanks to maggie thatcher who was one of it's advocates right wing nut jobs might be a suitable description.
posted by fija
Change the topic from religion to government/politics and this person would be a typical internet libertarian.
I've never been called a right wing nutter before. I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or amused, as insults go it's not up to much. I had to look it up to see what he was talking about. If only he had benefited from a liberal education:sneaky:
It's foolish to label people-most are left wing on some things and right wing on others depending on the issue. It seems to be a trait in america that you have to have a label attached to identify yourself and people need to be able to pigeon-hole you and if it's the wrong label what you say is somehow rendered nonsensical.
By Scripture alone?
Clodhopper;1247431 wrote: God is God and we just do our best. Just like the translators and compilers of our Bible.
When you start excluding, when you start judging and condemning - BEWARE.
I did try at the start to suggest to the chap that vocabulary underlies a lot of any disagreement we might have, religion's notorious for such pitfalls. I still can't come to grips with this throwback American fetish for Latin tags, for one thing. Some part of their education system seems to feel that Latinisms take dialogue to a new level. It happens time and again on these international boards.
There are broad sets, some are exclusionary and some aren't. Either God reveals His nature to humanity or He remains consistently ineffable and can only be defined by humanity's experience. They're incompatible positions. If He reveals His nature to humanity and it's one of salvation then either He does it exclusively within a single group or He does it continuously through various inconsistent revelations - hence my question about distinguishing the Book Of Mormon from the Bible as the authentic voice of God.
I've asked flja to distinguish his position within those areas and been ignored each time. He claims there's a specific revelation: that's his dogmatic starting-point, his truth, his axiom on which he builds his world-view. What I want him to explore is whether that revelation - the Bible - is in any way different to (in my example) His revelation to Joseph Smith in the form of The Book Of Mormon. Is the Bible the true revelation of God but the Book Of Mormon untouched by divine inspiration? If so, how (other than as a dogmatic statement of assumed fact) does he know this? Did God tell him so directly, other than through a circular authentication which relies on his initial dogmatic starting-point for proof?
Failing any definitive demonstration from God that one or other dogmatic assertion is The Truth, religion becomes an arena of doing rather than an arena of belief. This belief, that belief, any of them is founded on the simple adoption of a given axiomatic guess promoted to cornerstone truth. That's the nature of axioms, that's what they're for. An action, on the other hand, can be more reasonably evaluated. Was it nice? Did it help? Has anyone been harmed in the process? What's undeniable about the Bible is there was a bunch of pre-Pauline associates who described various behavioural modes as worthwhile, in between bouts of self-sacrificial magic trying unsuccessfully to force their tribal totem into ending the yuga. Living within the principles they described is instructive.
When you start excluding, when you start judging and condemning - BEWARE.
I did try at the start to suggest to the chap that vocabulary underlies a lot of any disagreement we might have, religion's notorious for such pitfalls. I still can't come to grips with this throwback American fetish for Latin tags, for one thing. Some part of their education system seems to feel that Latinisms take dialogue to a new level. It happens time and again on these international boards.
There are broad sets, some are exclusionary and some aren't. Either God reveals His nature to humanity or He remains consistently ineffable and can only be defined by humanity's experience. They're incompatible positions. If He reveals His nature to humanity and it's one of salvation then either He does it exclusively within a single group or He does it continuously through various inconsistent revelations - hence my question about distinguishing the Book Of Mormon from the Bible as the authentic voice of God.
I've asked flja to distinguish his position within those areas and been ignored each time. He claims there's a specific revelation: that's his dogmatic starting-point, his truth, his axiom on which he builds his world-view. What I want him to explore is whether that revelation - the Bible - is in any way different to (in my example) His revelation to Joseph Smith in the form of The Book Of Mormon. Is the Bible the true revelation of God but the Book Of Mormon untouched by divine inspiration? If so, how (other than as a dogmatic statement of assumed fact) does he know this? Did God tell him so directly, other than through a circular authentication which relies on his initial dogmatic starting-point for proof?
Failing any definitive demonstration from God that one or other dogmatic assertion is The Truth, religion becomes an arena of doing rather than an arena of belief. This belief, that belief, any of them is founded on the simple adoption of a given axiomatic guess promoted to cornerstone truth. That's the nature of axioms, that's what they're for. An action, on the other hand, can be more reasonably evaluated. Was it nice? Did it help? Has anyone been harmed in the process? What's undeniable about the Bible is there was a bunch of pre-Pauline associates who described various behavioural modes as worthwhile, in between bouts of self-sacrificial magic trying unsuccessfully to force their tribal totem into ending the yuga. Living within the principles they described is instructive.
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.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
By Scripture alone?
Yes, agreed a lot of the misunderstandings on this board are down to the well-known problems of communicating across our different dialects.
I also wonder how the literalists cope with Old Testament instructions about eg not wearing clothing made of more than one type of fibre, or not eating shellfish etc. Those seem to get missed in favour of being self-righteous.:rolleyes:
I also wonder how the literalists cope with Old Testament instructions about eg not wearing clothing made of more than one type of fibre, or not eating shellfish etc. Those seem to get missed in favour of being self-righteous.:rolleyes:
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
By Scripture alone?
Clodhopper;1247506 wrote: I also wonder how the literalists cope with Old Testament instructions about eg not wearing clothing made of more than one type of fibre, or not eating shellfish etc. Those seem to get missed in favour of being self-righteous.:rolleyes:Someone should post an educational photo of his neighbour's ass at this point so we could all primly refuse to covet it. That's not just a single verse either, that's Deuteronomy 5:21, Exodus 20:17, Romans 7:7 and Romans 13:9 so it's a fairly central demand.
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;1246766 wrote: 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.
It's difficult to have a serious conversation with those that let their faith super cede common sense or logic and still believe in Fairy Tales.
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.
It's difficult to have a serious conversation with those that let their faith super cede common sense or logic and still believe in Fairy Tales.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1247394 wrote: If you are unwilling to submit to the authority of the Lord God and accept His authority as legitimate, your views on the Bible are of no interest to me as far as a discussion of sola scriptura goes.
Do you mind if I add a small addendum to this? As an individual I'm not under any prior contract to this authority you claim exists and neither do I live in a society which collectively agreed one on my behalf.
If you're telling me I've been dragged, screaming and unwillingly, into consciousness by this demonic force who (though He can) refuses to intervene on the part of widows, orphans or any other manifestation of the helpless, and told to fulfil certain minimum obligations or face the dire eternal hellish consequences of refusal, you can be absolutely certain I refuse. What's more even if I were offered a seat among the Elect I'd turn it down. I have absolute moral objections to kow-towing to any such bestial arrogance and so would any right-thinking person faced with the same intolerable demand.
Do you mind if I add a small addendum to this? As an individual I'm not under any prior contract to this authority you claim exists and neither do I live in a society which collectively agreed one on my behalf.
If you're telling me I've been dragged, screaming and unwillingly, into consciousness by this demonic force who (though He can) refuses to intervene on the part of widows, orphans or any other manifestation of the helpless, and told to fulfil certain minimum obligations or face the dire eternal hellish consequences of refusal, you can be absolutely certain I refuse. What's more even if I were offered a seat among the Elect I'd turn it down. I have absolute moral objections to kow-towing to any such bestial arrogance and so would any right-thinking person faced with the same intolerable demand.
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?
Lon;1247553 wrote: It's difficult to have a serious conversation with those that let their faith super cede common sense or logic and still believe in Fairy Tales.
to have faith in the first place you need to forego common sense and logic and believe in fairy tales.
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther
to have faith in the first place you need to forego common sense and logic and believe in fairy tales.
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1247572 wrote: to have faith in the first place you need to forego common sense and logic and believe in fairy tales.Martin Luther was something of an extremist.
To have faith in the first place you need experience. Then you need to work out an explanation for the experience which satisfies your common sense and logic while mapping to a greater or lesser extent onto the vocabulary used by those who have been there before you. Greater is good since it gives more pointers for subsequent exploration.
To have faith in the first place you need experience. Then you need to work out an explanation for the experience which satisfies your common sense and logic while mapping to a greater or lesser extent onto the vocabulary used by those who have been there before you. Greater is good since it gives more pointers for subsequent exploration.
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?
spot;1247589 wrote: Martin Luther was something of an extremist.
To have faith in the first place you need experience. Then you need to work out an explanation for the experience which satisfies your common sense and logic while mapping to a greater or lesser extent onto the vocabulary used by those who have been there before you. Greater is good since it gives more pointers for subsequent exploration.
So then you throw common sense and logic out the window and latch on to faith? What utter nonsense.
As a child you believe what you are told without question, as you get older you start to question and learn how to think for yourself. You read things for yourself and realise there is a lot more than what you have been taught to believe reason and logic are tools you learn how to use, as you gain experience you start to doubt the faith you once had as a child before you had learned to reason. In a free society you may decide the whole concept is a load of rubbish and express that view openly. A free society is not one where religion does not have a grip on power.
Martin Luther may have been an extremist but many religious extremists on all sides agree with him and put the principle in to practice. Given half a chance Christians extremists are every bit as vile as muslim ones and would force everyone to accept the authority of the bible or the pope or what ever particular creed they follow. Like you I can produce plenty of examples when they have done so.
I also know many devoutly religious people who are happy with their belief and it's inconsistencies and feel no need to force others to their view of things.
posted by spot
As an individual I'm not under any prior contract to this authority you claim exists and neither do I live in a society which collectively agreed one on my behalf.
posted by fija
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.
I would put it to you that it is no thanks to people who think like fija appears to that you live in a free society.
he would indeed stamp out all reason and have people know nothing but the word of god-but only his version of it. There is no discourse you have to his basic premise even if he does ask what people think.
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.
My response to those two would be cobblers and not very likely.
The first ones means only Christians can know god.
The second flies in the face of common sense.
You can't reason with someone that turns their back on reason all you can do is let them get on with it and oppose them when necessity compels it. Their influence is a baleful one that belongs back in the middle ages.
To have faith in the first place you need experience. Then you need to work out an explanation for the experience which satisfies your common sense and logic while mapping to a greater or lesser extent onto the vocabulary used by those who have been there before you. Greater is good since it gives more pointers for subsequent exploration.
So then you throw common sense and logic out the window and latch on to faith? What utter nonsense.
As a child you believe what you are told without question, as you get older you start to question and learn how to think for yourself. You read things for yourself and realise there is a lot more than what you have been taught to believe reason and logic are tools you learn how to use, as you gain experience you start to doubt the faith you once had as a child before you had learned to reason. In a free society you may decide the whole concept is a load of rubbish and express that view openly. A free society is not one where religion does not have a grip on power.
Martin Luther may have been an extremist but many religious extremists on all sides agree with him and put the principle in to practice. Given half a chance Christians extremists are every bit as vile as muslim ones and would force everyone to accept the authority of the bible or the pope or what ever particular creed they follow. Like you I can produce plenty of examples when they have done so.
I also know many devoutly religious people who are happy with their belief and it's inconsistencies and feel no need to force others to their view of things.
posted by spot
As an individual I'm not under any prior contract to this authority you claim exists and neither do I live in a society which collectively agreed one on my behalf.
posted by fija
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.
I would put it to you that it is no thanks to people who think like fija appears to that you live in a free society.
he would indeed stamp out all reason and have people know nothing but the word of god-but only his version of it. There is no discourse you have to his basic premise even if he does ask what people think.
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.
My response to those two would be cobblers and not very likely.
The first ones means only Christians can know god.
The second flies in the face of common sense.
You can't reason with someone that turns their back on reason all you can do is let them get on with it and oppose them when necessity compels it. Their influence is a baleful one that belongs back in the middle ages.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1245944 wrote: 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.
May as well throw my hat in the ring as well. You went wrong with 3 & 4.
You yourself as a sinful human being can never attain holiness whilst you are in your skin. It's the holiness of Jesus you are wearing. You cant add to that.
And 4, God is not limited to a book. He speaks whenever He and however He choses. The Bible tells you that. Dreams, tornadoes, whatever.
And we in no way resemble the Holy Spirit in which you should place your trust in leading to the truth of things. The Bible spells that out as well.
Have you even read it? And what the heck is this Solar thing anyway? Sounds like another cult trick to me.
You in no way can add to what the Lord did, so quit suffering, and start being happy and grateful with the knowledge you have! And for Petes sake, READ THE BIBLE!
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.
May as well throw my hat in the ring as well. You went wrong with 3 & 4.
You yourself as a sinful human being can never attain holiness whilst you are in your skin. It's the holiness of Jesus you are wearing. You cant add to that.
And 4, God is not limited to a book. He speaks whenever He and however He choses. The Bible tells you that. Dreams, tornadoes, whatever.
And we in no way resemble the Holy Spirit in which you should place your trust in leading to the truth of things. The Bible spells that out as well.
Have you even read it? And what the heck is this Solar thing anyway? Sounds like another cult trick to me.
You in no way can add to what the Lord did, so quit suffering, and start being happy and grateful with the knowledge you have! And for Petes sake, READ THE BIBLE!
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
By Scripture alone?
Raven;1247753 wrote: Have you even read it? And what the heck is this Solar thing anyway? Sounds like another cult trick to me.
It's Latin, sweetie.
Either God deliberately and totally hides Himself from humanity except through the pages of the Bible or He doesn't. If He does then Scripture is authoritative. If He doesn't then it ain't and there are other additional ways of discovering His almighty purposes.
If scripture's authoritative then He can't come back and tell people anything different so He has to hide. He's not even allowed to say the same things in different ways for modern audiences except by nudging the minds of Bible translators into the exact paths of righteousness without contradicting himself.
For some reason our new friend believes this to be contrary to the nature of God so he is tending toward rejecting it. God is, one hopes, suitably grateful for the clarification.
We don't yet know what he bases his belief on. I do hope it's not just common sense, that would be a hell of a let-down.
It's Latin, sweetie.
Either God deliberately and totally hides Himself from humanity except through the pages of the Bible or He doesn't. If He does then Scripture is authoritative. If He doesn't then it ain't and there are other additional ways of discovering His almighty purposes.
If scripture's authoritative then He can't come back and tell people anything different so He has to hide. He's not even allowed to say the same things in different ways for modern audiences except by nudging the minds of Bible translators into the exact paths of righteousness without contradicting himself.
For some reason our new friend believes this to be contrary to the nature of God so he is tending toward rejecting it. God is, one hopes, suitably grateful for the clarification.
We don't yet know what he bases his belief on. I do hope it's not just common sense, that would be a hell of a let-down.
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;1247724 wrote: So then you throw common sense and logic out the window and latch on to faith? What utter nonsense. Don't be quite so dismissive, I don't think I've done any such thing. None of us knows the underlying fabric of the universe, we all work with models which approximate aspects of our experience. Half the point of science is to agree terms in which to discuss what's there to be seen.
I've not compromised either common sense or logic in creating my world view. I take the universe to be a static body through which any given mind is threaded, developing in time as each new experience is encountered. I've no concept of any external God independently judging my progress or dangling eternal pie in the sky as a lure. On the other hand many of the writers I read use a vocabulary which employs the word that way. Despite their language they describe the same mental territory and they've explored it far more thoroughly than I have. They enlighten me.
Dogmatic belief is a pointless distracting shackle imposed by religious power bases which should invariably be ridiculed out of existence. The more blatantly ridiculous their claims the better and they certainly go far beyond sanity. It's why I so like the Mormons, they provide a perfect illustration of imbecile credulity and yet their axiomatic assumption of Revealed Truth is no worse founded than that of all the other monotheist religions. In some ways it's better founded in that they have confirming testimony legally sworn under US law by witnesses to the Divine revelation.
I've not compromised either common sense or logic in creating my world view. I take the universe to be a static body through which any given mind is threaded, developing in time as each new experience is encountered. I've no concept of any external God independently judging my progress or dangling eternal pie in the sky as a lure. On the other hand many of the writers I read use a vocabulary which employs the word that way. Despite their language they describe the same mental territory and they've explored it far more thoroughly than I have. They enlighten me.
Dogmatic belief is a pointless distracting shackle imposed by religious power bases which should invariably be ridiculed out of existence. The more blatantly ridiculous their claims the better and they certainly go far beyond sanity. It's why I so like the Mormons, they provide a perfect illustration of imbecile credulity and yet their axiomatic assumption of Revealed Truth is no worse founded than that of all the other monotheist religions. In some ways it's better founded in that they have confirming testimony legally sworn under US law by witnesses to the Divine revelation.
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?
Thanks for the clarification! My Latin is limited to mile long medical maladies.
And I've never known God to hide. He is omnipresent, omnipotent and all knowing. (cant remember how to spell that one.) So how can He hide? One thing God is not, is limited in how He chooses to present Himself. But how does that make the Bible any less authoritative? It's the first step in getting to know where you stand. Bit of back history on this whole sinner needing redemption issue. But God most certainly still speaks! Who the hell does this guy thinks answers prayers??:-2
And I've never known God to hide. He is omnipresent, omnipotent and all knowing. (cant remember how to spell that one.) So how can He hide? One thing God is not, is limited in how He chooses to present Himself. But how does that make the Bible any less authoritative? It's the first step in getting to know where you stand. Bit of back history on this whole sinner needing redemption issue. But God most certainly still speaks! Who the hell does this guy thinks answers prayers??:-2
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
By Scripture alone?
Raven;1247774 wrote: One thing God is not, is limited in how He chooses to present Himself. But how does that make the Bible any less authoritative?Go on, think about it. Consider the promise in Luke 6:38: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again". It's not a wait-for-heaven promise, it's a promise that men shall give into your bosom in like response to your giving.
If God ever presents himself by acting in a way that contradicts such a verse of the Bible then He's saying the verse in the bible's not authoritative, He doesn't act the way it says, the Bible's mistaken. So God's limited in how He chooses to present Himself. Assuming, of course, that the Bible's authoritative.
Raven wrote: Who the hell does this guy thinks answers prayers??:-2Our new friend? He joined ForumGarden to tell us that he tends toward rejecting those axioms of belief from the Original Post. Lie back and be grateful.
If God ever presents himself by acting in a way that contradicts such a verse of the Bible then He's saying the verse in the bible's not authoritative, He doesn't act the way it says, the Bible's mistaken. So God's limited in how He chooses to present Himself. Assuming, of course, that the Bible's authoritative.
Raven wrote: Who the hell does this guy thinks answers prayers??:-2Our new friend? He joined ForumGarden to tell us that he tends toward rejecting those axioms of belief from the Original Post. Lie back and be grateful.
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?
Why is it, the first thing a person tends to do upon hearing the idea of God, is to try and put limitations and boundaries around Him? 
I am starting to become very cynical...I think most people are just stupid. (except for my mates here of course...ahem):yh_bigsmi And then there is that peculiar breed that call themselves....academics...
I am starting to become very cynical...I think most people are just stupid. (except for my mates here of course...ahem):yh_bigsmi And then there is that peculiar breed that call themselves....academics...~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
By Scripture alone?
posted by spot
Don't be quite so dismissive, I don't think I've done any such thing. None of us knows the underlying fabric of the universe, we all work with models which approximate aspects of our experience. Half the point of science is to agree terms in which to discuss what's there to be seen.
I've not compromised either common sense or logic in creating my world view. I take the universe to be a static body through which any given mind is threaded, developing in time as each new experience is encountered. I've no concept of any external God independently judging my progress or dangling eternal pie in the sky as a lure. On the other hand many of the writers I read use a vocabulary which employs the word that way. Despite their language they describe the same mental territory and they've explored it far more thoroughly than I have. They enlighten me.
Don't take it so personally it wasn't meant that way. To have faith you have to suspend logic and reason and believe despite everything like reason or logic. Most people with experience of life and education tend to move to a position of not believing or a secular view of things. That's why religious organisations want to control what children are taught try and control what their flock read and think. People thinking for themselves affect the power base. Faith schools are incredibly divisive in society and should be banned or at least no funded by the public pure. I don't see why I as taxpayer should be expected to fund muslim or catholic education and I have had first hand experience of the conflict they cause-not muslim but catholic and protestant. I'm not against the teaching about religion just indoctrination.
In a secular society people are not intolerant of religion the problem is a lot of religious groups are intolerant of non believers and want to stop them speaking out and infecting their followers. Rather than live and let live they cause conflict not only with non believers bit other religions as they argue about who is right meanwhile demanding that their belief be given a respect that allows them to preach intolerance and hatred with impunity.
People like fija spout bits of latin as if it has some kind strange authority of it's own but hasn't a clue how such a doctrine came about or the impact it had and is deeply offended if anyone disagrees with the basic premise. Such disagreement shouldn't affect his faith but rather than discussing it he doesn't even want to think about it or accept that non believers are entitled to their express beliefs every bit as much as him. I would suggest because thinking get painful when you are working out your own world view, much easier to follow and shout down anyone with the wrong view. The next step from sola scriptura is to think for yourself, the enlightenment owes a great deal to martin luther although imo he was perhaps just another spark rather than a match that set europe alight.
YouTube - Dave Allen on Religion
Don't be quite so dismissive, I don't think I've done any such thing. None of us knows the underlying fabric of the universe, we all work with models which approximate aspects of our experience. Half the point of science is to agree terms in which to discuss what's there to be seen.
I've not compromised either common sense or logic in creating my world view. I take the universe to be a static body through which any given mind is threaded, developing in time as each new experience is encountered. I've no concept of any external God independently judging my progress or dangling eternal pie in the sky as a lure. On the other hand many of the writers I read use a vocabulary which employs the word that way. Despite their language they describe the same mental territory and they've explored it far more thoroughly than I have. They enlighten me.
Don't take it so personally it wasn't meant that way. To have faith you have to suspend logic and reason and believe despite everything like reason or logic. Most people with experience of life and education tend to move to a position of not believing or a secular view of things. That's why religious organisations want to control what children are taught try and control what their flock read and think. People thinking for themselves affect the power base. Faith schools are incredibly divisive in society and should be banned or at least no funded by the public pure. I don't see why I as taxpayer should be expected to fund muslim or catholic education and I have had first hand experience of the conflict they cause-not muslim but catholic and protestant. I'm not against the teaching about religion just indoctrination.
In a secular society people are not intolerant of religion the problem is a lot of religious groups are intolerant of non believers and want to stop them speaking out and infecting their followers. Rather than live and let live they cause conflict not only with non believers bit other religions as they argue about who is right meanwhile demanding that their belief be given a respect that allows them to preach intolerance and hatred with impunity.
People like fija spout bits of latin as if it has some kind strange authority of it's own but hasn't a clue how such a doctrine came about or the impact it had and is deeply offended if anyone disagrees with the basic premise. Such disagreement shouldn't affect his faith but rather than discussing it he doesn't even want to think about it or accept that non believers are entitled to their express beliefs every bit as much as him. I would suggest because thinking get painful when you are working out your own world view, much easier to follow and shout down anyone with the wrong view. The next step from sola scriptura is to think for yourself, the enlightenment owes a great deal to martin luther although imo he was perhaps just another spark rather than a match that set europe alight.
YouTube - Dave Allen on Religion
By Scripture alone?
gmc - I have just spent a very merry half hour on a Dave Allen nostalgia trip. Thank you!!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
By Scripture alone?
If God ever presents himself by acting in a way that contradicts such a verse of the Bible then He's saying the verse in the bible's not authoritative, He doesn't act the way it says, the Bible's mistaken. So God's limited in how He chooses to present Himself. Assuming, of course, that the Bible's authoritative.
(Slight aside: Ever seen the film Dogma (I think it was called)? Follows the Catholic articles of faith to their logical conclusion....)
Seems to me the mistake being made is that you are applying four dimensional human logic to someone who - if he exists - exists in something like 12 dimensions. I lose track of how many dimensions the cosmologists now think there are, but God, to be God, must exist in them all plus one. Our logic, language, experience and understanding are not able to do more than hint or guess about him. In that sense the Bible, it seems to me, is an attempt to describe the indescribable and should be seen in that light. Attempting to limit God by the Bible then sounds foolish. It's like having a description of a lion as big and yellow with claws and teeth, then seeing a lion, and saying it can't be a lion because my description says nothing about roaring. Analogy is always suspect, but I hope mine illustrates the way I am thinking.
(Slight aside: Ever seen the film Dogma (I think it was called)? Follows the Catholic articles of faith to their logical conclusion....)
Seems to me the mistake being made is that you are applying four dimensional human logic to someone who - if he exists - exists in something like 12 dimensions. I lose track of how many dimensions the cosmologists now think there are, but God, to be God, must exist in them all plus one. Our logic, language, experience and understanding are not able to do more than hint or guess about him. In that sense the Bible, it seems to me, is an attempt to describe the indescribable and should be seen in that light. Attempting to limit God by the Bible then sounds foolish. It's like having a description of a lion as big and yellow with claws and teeth, then seeing a lion, and saying it can't be a lion because my description says nothing about roaring. Analogy is always suspect, but I hope mine illustrates the way I am thinking.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
By Scripture alone?
Clodhopper;1248037 wrote: (Slight aside: Ever seen the film Dogma (I think it was called)? Follows the Catholic articles of faith to their logical conclusion....)
I can't believe you just got me to sit through watching that. I'm having trouble with the idea any film can have that many star actors doing such a good job. That was just weird.
I can't believe you just got me to sit through watching that. I'm having trouble with the idea any film can have that many star actors doing such a good job. That was just weird.
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.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
By Scripture alone?
I can't believe you just got me to sit through watching that. I'm having trouble with the idea any film can have that many star actors doing such a good job. That was just weird.
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Fun though, innit?
Particularly liked the Prophets.
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Fun though, innit?
Particularly liked the Prophets.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
By Scripture alone?
What's the odds of this???? "Dogma" is showing here on one of the cable Movie Channels this very evening!! Thanks Clodders!!!!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
By Scripture alone?
What's the odds of this???? "Dogma" is showing here on one of the cable Movie Channels this very evening!! Thanks Clodders!!!!
There's a bit of luck! Enjoy.
Now I want to watch it again. I wonder if I can find it on the internet...
There's a bit of luck! Enjoy.
Now I want to watch it again. I wonder if I can find it on the internet...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
By Scripture alone?
posted by clodhopper
(Slight aside: Ever seen the film Dogma (I think it was called)? Follows the Catholic articles of faith to their logical conclusion....)
I've seen that. Not being catholic or indeed terribly religious I hadn't realised the controversy it caused. Still think the life of brian was funnier though.
YouTube - Life of Brian Part 1 of 11
(Slight aside: Ever seen the film Dogma (I think it was called)? Follows the Catholic articles of faith to their logical conclusion....)
I've seen that. Not being catholic or indeed terribly religious I hadn't realised the controversy it caused. Still think the life of brian was funnier though.
YouTube - Life of Brian Part 1 of 11
By Scripture alone?
Whatever one does don't take the Bible literally or you will be led to all kinds of absurdities.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
By Scripture alone?
I fear our seed fell on stony ground with this chap, Ted.
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?
Spot:-6
You are probably correct in that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are probably correct in that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
By Scripture alone?
I've just reread Genesis 38, v 10 about spilling seed, and you're both definitely for it!!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
By Scripture alone?
Trust you to offer a hand at moments like this, Pam.
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?
Spot - I'm aiming at a pure heart and clean hands
Psalm 24, v 4
But doesn't the Lord help those who help themselves... haven't got time to look up the reference... this thread is a bit too much of a wank anyway...
Bye bye
Psalm 24, v 4
But doesn't the Lord help those who help themselves... haven't got time to look up the reference... this thread is a bit too much of a wank anyway...
Bye bye
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
By Scripture alone?
Pam:-6
Now that is a hoot. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Now that is a hoot. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
By Scripture alone?
"Anyone that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" VOLTAIRE
By Scripture alone?
Lon;1249868 wrote: "Anyone that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" VOLTAIRE
Actually Lon I think you'll find it was Michael Jackson said that, not Voltaire.
Actually Lon I think you'll find it was Michael Jackson said that, not Voltaire.
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?
spot;1249870 wrote: Actually Lon I think you'll find it was Michael Jackson said that, not Voltaire.
Jackson might have said it, but Voltaire said it first. Do you mean this Michael Jackson?
Attached files
Jackson might have said it, but Voltaire said it first. Do you mean this Michael Jackson?
Attached files
By Scripture alone?
Lon;1249878 wrote: Jackson might have said it, but Voltaire said it first. Do you mean this Michael Jackson?
I was trying to make you commit atrocities, that's all. Was it too unbelievable or was it insufficiently absurd?
I was trying to make you commit atrocities, that's all. Was it too unbelievable or was it insufficiently absurd?
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?
spot;1249883 wrote: I was trying to make you commit atrocities, that's all. Was it too unbelievable or was it insufficiently absurd?
Ha---I just had a hard time believing that Jackson could say "absurdities":)
Ha---I just had a hard time believing that Jackson could say "absurdities":)
By Scripture alone?
what he actually said was Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
he also said
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
except he said it in french.
The only thing he said you can agree with is cogitio ergo sum or if you prefer I am thinking, therefore I exist. But I'm not sure about you lot-are you real or am I dreaming?
he also said
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
except he said it in french.
The only thing he said you can agree with is cogitio ergo sum or if you prefer I am thinking, therefore I exist. But I'm not sure about you lot-are you real or am I dreaming?
By Scripture alone?
gmc;1249947 wrote: The only thing he said you can agree with is cogitio ergo sum or if you prefer I am thinking, therefore I exist. But I'm not sure about you lot-are you real or am I dreaming?
It's worse than you imagine - you live in a curious parallel universe in which Voltaire plagiarized Descartes.
It's worse than you imagine - you live in a curious parallel universe in which Voltaire plagiarized Descartes.
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?
spot;1249967 wrote: It's worse than you imagine - you live in a curious parallel universe in which Voltaire plagiarized Descartes.
:o :-5In my defence school was a long time ago and I'm getting absent minded. Never did think much of the way he proved the existence of god.
:o :-5In my defence school was a long time ago and I'm getting absent minded. Never did think much of the way he proved the existence of god.
By Scripture alone?
flja;1245944 wrote: 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.
That cannot be true if Scripture is correct. According to Scripture, God reveals himself to each saint. Some saints are prophets, some teachers, some evangelists. True prophets, teachers and evangelists do not make any statements that contradict Scripture, though they do make statements that confirm or explain Scriptural truths in particular situations.
V. Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
There is only one Protestant tradition or standpoint (denominations have no necessity or importance per se). It posits authority only in autographs, insofar as they can be traced (which is believed to be to completion in most cases.)
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.
Scripture has never been canonised, because there is no-one to do the canonising. There are 66 books that receive 'universal' recognition, though nobody has to accept them all, or any of them, of course.
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.
Scripture is not necessary to achieve salvation. The gospel is necessary for that, and belief in the Christ for one's justification. Some Christians have lived and died without reading much or even any Scripture. The Ethiopian in Acts, for instance, read just one part of Scripture, and became a Christian, going 'on his way rejoicing'.
It is true, however, that any literate person can understand the gospel clearly by reading Scripture.
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.
That cannot be true if Scripture is correct. According to Scripture, God reveals himself to each saint. Some saints are prophets, some teachers, some evangelists. True prophets, teachers and evangelists do not make any statements that contradict Scripture, though they do make statements that confirm or explain Scriptural truths in particular situations.
V. Scripture is verbally inspired, although not all Protestant traditions accept that the inspiration extends to copies and translations.
There is only one Protestant tradition or standpoint (denominations have no necessity or importance per se). It posits authority only in autographs, insofar as they can be traced (which is believed to be to completion in most cases.)
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.
Scripture has never been canonised, because there is no-one to do the canonising. There are 66 books that receive 'universal' recognition, though nobody has to accept them all, or any of them, of course.
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.
Scripture is not necessary to achieve salvation. The gospel is necessary for that, and belief in the Christ for one's justification. Some Christians have lived and died without reading much or even any Scripture. The Ethiopian in Acts, for instance, read just one part of Scripture, and became a Christian, going 'on his way rejoicing'.
It is true, however, that any literate person can understand the gospel clearly by reading Scripture.
By Scripture alone?
xyz;1323957 wrote: That cannot be true if Scripture is correct. According to Scripture, God reveals himself to each saint. Some saints are prophets, some teachers, some evangelists. True prophets, teachers and evangelists do not make any statements that contradict Scripture, though they do make statements that confirm or explain Scriptural truths in particular situations.
There is only one Protestant tradition or standpoint (denominations have no necessity or importance per se). It posits authority only in autographs, insofar as they can be traced (which is believed to be to completion in most cases.)
Scripture has never been canonised, because there is no-one to do the canonising. There are 66 books that receive 'universal' recognition, though nobody has to accept them all, or any of them, of course.
Scripture is not necessary to achieve salvation. The gospel is necessary for that, and belief in the Christ for one's justification. Some Christians have lived and died without reading much or even any Scripture. The Ethiopian in Acts, for instance, read just one part of Scripture, and became a Christian, going 'on his way rejoicing'.
It is true, however, that any literate person can understand the gospel clearly by reading Scripture.
How can that possibly be true?
There are as many Protestant traditions as there were religious leaders protesting against the excesses of the Catholic Church - Luther is very different to Wesley is very different to Calvin etc.
There is only one Protestant tradition or standpoint (denominations have no necessity or importance per se). It posits authority only in autographs, insofar as they can be traced (which is believed to be to completion in most cases.)
Scripture has never been canonised, because there is no-one to do the canonising. There are 66 books that receive 'universal' recognition, though nobody has to accept them all, or any of them, of course.
Scripture is not necessary to achieve salvation. The gospel is necessary for that, and belief in the Christ for one's justification. Some Christians have lived and died without reading much or even any Scripture. The Ethiopian in Acts, for instance, read just one part of Scripture, and became a Christian, going 'on his way rejoicing'.
It is true, however, that any literate person can understand the gospel clearly by reading Scripture.
How can that possibly be true?
There are as many Protestant traditions as there were religious leaders protesting against the excesses of the Catholic Church - Luther is very different to Wesley is very different to Calvin etc.