Posted on 10/13/2013 12:01:40 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
If you don’t believe there is a God why do you care what those of us who do think? And why should we care?
“No, the argument is totally valid.”
Notice though that your argument is so valid that you have to make an assertion that it is, followed up with what is basically just a repetition of what you said before followed up with chest thumping, without actually replying to anything I said.
“Who is the arbiter? Other humans? Pathetic.”
Why do we even need an arbiter? That’s more your problem, since you, being blinded, are incapable of understanding the scripture for yourself, and so you cannot come to a position unless someone tells you what to think.
Your failure to see that is consistent with the problem. Amazing so many stand in unity, affirming the same creed and singing the same songs that makes them an enemy of those who add to Scripture as well as who deny it, while allowing limited disagreement in other issues. But people dispute what the Constitutions means as well.
Big deal. The Mormon choir is spectacular as well. My point being that there are just as many who stand in unison to dispute the conclusions of the people of your creed, for example, the Protestsnts. Are they any less faithful? And compared to the Catholics, they have added and removed books from their bibles, too, just as the former chose by committee to do the same, centuries prior.
Re-read what I wrote. You obviously missed my point.
The people receiving and interpreting “divine” messages and scriptures in opposing ways are all believers themselves, as in people who have faith in that god they call one. They arrive at differing interpretations and feel justified in doing so. The “correct” interpretation thus falling at the mercy of human whim. Who is then right?
Does this make my point any clearer?
No one asked you to care.
I ask because I constantly seek to test my assumptions.
Those who don’t are fools.
It is you who fail to see that the problem can be with humans, who will interpret things contrary to even the most obvious intent of the writers. Thus pornography and sodomy is held as constitutional.
My point being that there are just as many who stand in unison to dispute the conclusions of the people of your creed, for example, the Protestsnts.
Indeed there is dispute, as this is a test, for while in many things there can be limited disagreement, the real division in the major ones overall is usually due to the exaltation of men as incontestable authorities, and or another source held as equal to Scripture.
Do you really think prayer to departed saints is exampled or taught in Scripture? (You misinterpreted me as being a Catholic.) Or that God has wives?
And compared to the Catholics, they have added and removed books from their bibles, too, just as the former chose by committee to do the same, centuries prior.
While the canon was generally settled in Catholicism, it was only after Luther's death that it was indisputably settled, and he has ancient and current support for rejecting apocryphal books.
And which are relatively obscure, more so if they were not read in Mass, while the enduring popularity of our 66 books is due to their power among the living. Classics are not by decree.
Good night.
I’m only replying so that you don’t fall under the assumption that you’ve addressed the issue at hand with your conjecture and personal-interpretation based comments.
From your earlier reply:
“...most obvious intent of the writers...”
Most “obvious”? To whom? You? Then why the dispute? Like I said, personal interpretation. Excusable because the Constitution is the work of fallible humans. Was slavery unconstitutional when the Constitution was drafted?
“Do you really think prayer to departed saints is exampled or taught in Scripture? (You misinterpreted me as being a Catholic.) Or that God has wives?”
Who are you to question them? They (Catholics) have history and popularity to justify their claims, just as you plead popularity as a substitute for genuine truth in the end of your prior reply.
“While the canon was generally settled in Catholicism, it was only after Luther’s death that it was indisputably settled, and he has ancient and current support for rejecting apocryphal books.”
LOL at the arrogance of personal judgment.
Indisputably settled? Hahaha! So the Catholics surrendered to Luther? And no new factions broke loose and formed after Luther? The myriad clans and cults under the Protestant umbrella undermine your claims.
You, sir, are hilarious in your defense of delusion.
Well, here's a test. You have been a Freeper for going on four years now. Free Republic is a pro-God, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-life, Conservative website. If you joined because you also are a Conservative, then you have already made choices about issues that you care about even against those who would hold opposing views. You accept Conservative principles because you recognize that there is a superior way for a society to prosper and thrive which is not found in Liberalism.
There are such things as absolute truths and they are true regardless if anyone believes them or not. Do we agree on this? So a person believing or accepting something does not make in inherently true, because truth is truth.
Do you presume that Christians are fools who don't "test" their assumptions? That people throughout time believed in various ideas about a "creator" or god(s) doesn't make their beliefs true and, IF there is a Creator/God, how he/she/it chooses to manifest to creation also doesn't change inherent truth. Either the Creator/God is real or there is no creator/god and man must look elsewhere to validate his place and purpose in a world with no purpose or place and which has no explanation for why it even exists. Yet, logical people CAN look at the design and order of the universe and the natural, observable world and reason that such could not have happened by chance or from chaos.
Is the problem of mankind being at odds with each other over what is truth CHANGE the truth? When nobody had come up yet with an explanation for gravity and why it worked as it did, gravity STILL existed and was true even when nobody understood how it worked. In arguments among believers, there are essential and nonessential doctrines - and that is true with ALL religious systems - even atheism. You say disagreements among believers is somehow a proof that an all-knowing Creator/God couldn't exist, well I say that absolute truth stands because God created it and the creature's job is to get to the point that, what God has revealed, He is able to open the hearts and minds of those who diligently seek to know Him. I wish you well in your search.
It seems difficult for RCs to understand that we do not follow or defend Luther as a pope, and who sometimes spoke carnally or unwisely, yet before you take more quotes out of context, as this hyperbole was as shown here - and which is from what is now but a fragment with no address, salutation, or signature - then search here . Many others are from Luther's Table Talk, which were not written by him and included informal facetious remarks.
Atheists charge Jesus with promoting stealing due to His commendation of the unjust steward in Lk. 16:1-9, and of being racist in Mt. 15:21-26, and unless you want to be like them, then examine context to find out the mode of speech and the meaning of it.
James, your premise was that "god is impotent in being unable to deliver a precise message that its followers don’t have to squabble over," that only an impotent god would speak in imprecise language which people squabble over, and as the God of the Bible did not also speak in precise language, which specious objections i addressed - if you read them.
However, atheists object when God does speak precisely, as in prohibitions on sexual partners, and then object when He speaks in a way which, as in life here, requires examination of genre, context, and grammar, and use of reason, and also object when he speaks enigmatically, as if that serves no purpose and disallows God from being Omnipotent!
...most obvious intent of the writers...” Most “obvious”? To whom? You?
Unlike the atheistic charge that God demanded blind faith, or that precise language is all that He should have spoken, God often appeals to reason, to arrive at the reasonable conclusion, and which reveal the heart. Jesus asked a lot of questions, the responses to which revealed what manner of men they were.
There are those who ague that Jesus did not condemn homosexual relations, although He condemns fornications, plural, and specified it was male and female that God joined in marriage, but which homosexual polemics also use a hermeneutic that effectively allows the abrogation of most any moral command.
But objective examination evidences this to be compelling Scripture to support their desired conclusion. Of course, one can argue that objective examination allows concluding that moon is made of cheese, but which reveals what such a polemicist consists of.
Excusable because the Constitution is the work of fallible humans. Was slavery unconstitutional when the Constitution was drafted?
It is you who is missing the point, which is that humans can come up with absurd interpretations of men that are not the fault of those who wrote it. Nor does the fact that the framers could have been more precise render them incapable of doing so, as per your perverse reasoning that god is impotent since His followers disagree as a result of imprecise messages.
Supposing the framers intended the first amendment to sanction hard core (at least) porn is similar to supposing that it sanctions yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Even precise language can see interpretive variance, and while that increases in ambiguous messages, they reveal the condition of the interpreter (and eternal judgment in Scripture is based upon the degree of light and ability).
And while men can struggle to wrest variant meanings out of any moral code, yet it is under the alternative of the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism that anything can be most easily be deemed "reasonable," versus having a standard which they must work to justify their conclusions by.
“Do you really think prayer to departed saints is exampled or taught in Scripture? (You misinterpreted me as being a Catholic.) Or that God has wives?”
Who are you to question them? They (Catholics) have history and popularity to justify their claims, just as you plead popularity as a substitute for genuine truth in the end of your prior reply.
I dissent from them based upon the evidence. They attempt to support PTDS from Scripture, and i reveal the lack of clothes for this "emperor." Not a single example out of over a hundred prayers of anyone praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, nor in instruction on how to pray "our Father," not "our mothers,,"), or another Heavenly intercessor except the risen Lord Jesus.
In addition, historical descent does not assure authenticity, else the church would be invalid. (Mk. 11:27-33)
As for popularity, this is based upon conformity to what it written, which is not the supreme authority nor is actual warrant from Scripture the basis for the the veracity of her teachings. Those are reasons.
LOL at the arrogance of personal judgment. Indisputably settled? Hahaha! So the Catholics surrendered to Luther? And no new factions broke loose and formed after Luther?
You are understandably ignorant of the debate. This was in response to your statement that Prots added and removed books from their bibles, as if Luther dissented from a "indisputably settled" canon as RCs often argue, and which term refers to Trent providing the first "infallible" (according to Rome's definition of herself).
You, sir, are hilarious in your defense of delusion.
Typical arrogant atheistic scorn, while it is your argument that followers squabbling over Scripture leaves god impotent in "being unable to deliver a precise message" that is a delusion, if not hilarious, while neither God nor His ability to communicate however He wants is a delusion.
In conclusion, God does speak precisely, as well as with less clarity, and sometimes quite enigmatically, but which does not render Him impotent (which He would be if He could not speak enigmatically), not militant against His righteous and salvific purpose.
But Titus 3:5, written to a Greek, does not, and in Rm. 4:4,5 in principle it extends to any system of justification based on actual merit, as actually deserving eternal life.
I doubt if you can find any indisputable RC teaching that Rm. 4 only refers to the Law, while Rome holds that even initial justification is on the basis of interior holiness, and in the end entrance into glory is attained by worthiness.
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.