In other words, I think a beginning to an answer was offered and your rejection of it was, well, hard to understand. Or maybe I didn't understand it.
This is a discussion where precision will matter, I think. Maybe it would help if you said what you meant by the value of Scripture. What sorts of value might it have? Of course, if the real purpose of the question is so that you can pounce on something or somebody and say, "See THERE? They ARE vicious apostates!" why don't you just go on ahead without me, okay?
It's also interesting and a matter of concern to me that the thread was started with a query about what the doctrine of the Trinity is. Whether it's a good doctrine, whether it's scripturally based, whether Catholics are a bunch of self-deluding and apostatic idolaters --- all these are different questions. I wonder if the original poster thinks the question was addressed. So much easier and more efficient to condemn something without taking the time to understand it.
It's like talking to atheists. They almost always start out by saying that they just want to understand and then end up by saying the If there is a God he's a jerk and they hate him and all those who believe in HIM are stupid, but I never feel like we agreed on who or what it is I so stupidly worship.
Similarly, some guy asks a question about the Trinity and, look out, here comes a bunch of people to say that Catholics and anybody who thinks for more than 5 seconds in a row about the doctrine, whatever it is, are just plain old doody-heads.
Whose mind will be changed, or even informed, by that kind of thing, I wonder. Excuse me, I have to go back to worshiping idols, burning heretics, selling indulgences and making up new burdens to bind on the people's backs now.
The original poster is a troll.
My original post mentions nothing about Catholicism.
Catholicism wasn't brought up in my conversation until A8 mentioned it at 102.
My questioning about the value of scripture was obscured by the respondents, not me. None of these respondents will answer the question, so I re-worded it. Still nothing.
This is a discussion where precision will matter, I think. Maybe it would help if you said what you meant by the value of Scripture. What sorts of value might it have? Of course, if the real purpose of the question is so that you can pounce on something or somebody and say, "See THERE? They ARE vicious apostates!" why don't you just go on ahead without me, okay?
Yes, precision matters, but it is a two way street. Until A8 or Campion tell me what the basis of their faith is, then I am at a loss to be able to debate them. My query on the origin of Sunday worship is a direct indicator of what the basis is for one's faith. I hold to the Biblical standard for doctrine as outlined in Deut 13:1, Isa 8:20, and 2 Ti 3:16. Those who believe that Mat 16:18 grants unmitigated power to one man whom they believe founded the Church at Rome and has passed this power down through the ages and all doctrine flows from this power should be proud to say so. To debate the scriptural validity of a doctrine with those who hold to this belief is an exercise in futility. I have no compunction publishing what I believe here for all the world to believe. If my opponents would oblige and reciprocate, then there would be a basis for debate. Until then, it is just an exercise to get me to type a lot to placate the literary sensibilities of a few.
I have a lot going on here at home and won't have a lot of time to dedicate to the thread, so take your time in responding.
FRegards, Chris