Posted on 10/25/2007 10:43:19 AM PDT by NYer
Why do you call this a "cheap shot?"
I do not understand how a total pagan who converts to Christianity, and concludes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is untenable, constitutes a "cheap shot."
Atheists aren't pagans & visa versa. We should all rejoice about an atheist converting to Christianity, not using her conversion as an opportunity to take a shot at some of the beliefs of other Christians, a common result in most threads of the conversion articles posted.
Sola Scriptura didn't lead the woman anywhere. "Putting words" into the mouth of the convert (the addition to the title) is an ugly passive aggressive tactic.
If Sola Scriptura is untenable for her, you or anyone else & the discipline of hierarchal authority is what y'all need, it works for you, that's fine. Trying to make it into a requirement for all is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
I have a friend who has put together a complete anthology of the Beatles music on his iPod, that does not mean that it is his music, just that he collected it.
After that there was no argument as to what books where in the Bible among Christians until Luther’s reformation in the 1500.
LOL. Always there have been variations, always will be.
If atheists aren't pagans, then the word has no meaning.
Sola Scriptura didn't lead the woman anywhere. "Putting words" into the mouth of the convert (the addition to the title) is an ugly passive aggressive tactic.
No one claimed it did. That is an ugly "straw man."
There is nothing wrong with addind the colloquial term to the conclusions of a new believer when those conclusions are identical. Would you get upset if "communion" was added to her tale of receiving the body and blood?
Trying to make it into a requirement for all is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
According to whom, and why not?
I'm not aware of any substantive controversy. Could you cite one?
I have a challenge to you & all other Christians around here, whoever reads this post. Rather than talking about converts, might be worthy use of some of our energy to work on converting someone.
I wandered over to YouTube yesterday & happened across a couple of potential candidates. The video was a Copt explaining the Trinity on al Jazerra (sp). On the surface, they look like they’d be resistant, but, something in the video drew them in. I think that taking the discussion to PM there would work better than getting into the public discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=rBCEnHOn1gI&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DrBCEnHOn1gI
Perhaps I should have said she did not trust individual Christians.
Of course, you don't have to actually believe that anything Jesus said is the truth.
Sadly you list of Jesus' quotes from the Bible would not have done Jennifer any good. Unlike you, she does not trust the Bible nor would she trust an individual Christians such as yourself. The only way that Jennifer will accept anything you have to say about Jesus is if you hold the "answer key" as an official representative of that divinely-guided Supreme Court, the Church. Unless you have the authority to speak for the Church, all of your wisdom is lost on Jennifer.
Though I do think that she would appreciate your sarcasm.
You are, of course, correct. For awhile, the Pro-Life movement was bringing together different Christians, however, Islam has the potential to unite us like nothing else.
1.Because Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 solas of the reformation.
2.The comment was added by the poster, and doesn't appear in the original article or its headline.
3.It appears that the original writer had not been exposed to any of the reformed bodies - she turned to Rome because they had a written catechism, but she makes no mention of having been exposed to the confessions and catechisms of the reformed bodies, meaning it is unlikely anything in the theology of Luther or Calvin lead her to Rome.
I will concede that my use of 'Calvinists' in my reply was too narrow; I should have used 'Reformed' to have included the Lutherans as well.
From New Advent - Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism.
Atheism (a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).
Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day.
No one claimed it did. That is an ugly "straw man."
What does the part of the title added in brackets mean if it doesn't mean what it says?
There is nothing wrong with addind the colloquial term to the conclusions of a new believer when those conclusions are identical.
If the title had said something along the line of, "Disillusionment with Sola Scriptura led", it would have been supported by the article. Sola Scriptura didn't lead her anywhere. Her inability to connect with it did.
Would you get upset if "communion" was added to her tale of receiving the body and blood?
Depends on the way it was added.
According to whom, and why not?
You're quite free to do it & when you do, like every other kind of insult you dish out to others, it may generate a certain amount of backlash.
Sadly, too many Christians are off somewhere, looking for more oil for their lamps.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why atheists become Catholics and not Fundamentalist Protestants!
Does she really believe that "real presence" stuff? Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!
This is still not an explaination of cheat shot.
The comment was added by the poster, and doesn't appear in the original article or its headline.
Same as above.
It appears that the original writer had not been exposed to any of the reformed bodies - she turned to Rome because they had a written catechism, but she makes no mention of having been exposed to the confessions and catechisms of the reformed bodies, meaning it is unlikely anything in the theology of Luther or Calvin lead her to Rome.
I see no basis for such a conclusion. Clearly her exposure to Bible-only advocates implies non-catholic influence.
More accurately, this was one contributing factor to a particular atheist's decision to embrace Catholicism.
If this were her sole criterion, nothing would have prevented her from becoming a Methodist.
After all, nothing in Methodism authorizes an allegorical view of Genesis, but many Methodists still understand Genesis in this way.
Sola Scriptura does not mean Bible-only.
Now you know why Catholics make such fine Supreme Court justices. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are all Catholic. :^D
They've done it, tho I think it was only the body & blood that was transformed for one particular priest. The result was blood type AB.
Know if any of them got their training from the Jesuits?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.