RE: Don't think women should fight

Scott is completely independent of both Catholic and Protestant dogma and he is an objective scientific thinker. That puts him way ahead of you and I. Of course the burden of proof is on you. That’s Occam’s raser. If you want people to believe in the supernatural you had better be able to prove it.

He was absolutely correct to point out that the Catholics are not the least little bit impressed by your interpretation of the scriptures because they know that you are not qualified to interpret that metaphorical text realistically. I strongly suspect that absolutely nothing in the Bible means what you think it means.

The farcical interpretations that you frequently provide us here are the reason why the Catholics discourage that practice. It makes you look unchristian when you get it so woefully wrong.

Look at what you said next:

What?!! Most people don’t depend on the scriptures.

Have all non believers God then? Does God not believe in himself? Duh!

This is an excellent example of your atrocious reasoning. If you can come to that conclusion, then subject stuff just too hard for you. Get some help.

If you can remove your dependence on the scriptures you have made yourself a little more objective and therefore believable. That’s all.

I have observed Scott’s discussion on religion over the years on this forum and he is easily the best informed and most coherent speaker on that subject amongst the ON regulars. He does not need to be a believer to be knowledgeable on this subject. Indeed, that is a hindrance because he has no faith to confuse his reason, as do you.

And yet, you persist in trying.

I think I was entirely fair to both. You were kvetching about how Catholicism is somehow “wrong” because their organization lacks biblical justification, and I pointed out how that was a Protestant fetish that’s never bothered the Catholics.

“Fair” doesn’t mean I interpret Catholic claims in Protestant lights. My atheism had nothing to do with the argument.

As an atheist, I think both Catholics and Protestants are nuts, suffering from an overdose of wishful thinking. Between the two, I think Catholic theology is marginally better defended than the retarded stuff that most Protestants push under that banner, but that’s a bit like saying Clara Peller is hotter than Anne Ramsey.

Or, viewed from their perspective, you “have no concrete understanding or revelation about Jesus”, since you’re using your own, untutored interpretation of a complex and subtle body of literature.

That’s the problem, here. You’re the one making unfair claims. You’ve got this whole body of unvalidated, illogical, even only marginally comprehensible theology, and you arrogantly assert that you, personally, have more authority to declare the truth of the matter than a few thousand years of Catholic theologians.

Sorry, but you don’t get to do that.

The Catholic rejection of sola scriptura doesn’t mean that they have “made themselves god”. Instead, they claim they’ve got an unbroken succession of spiritual leadership from the actual apostles to modern times. If it’s true, then why should they give a shit about your interpretation? They’ve got a far better claim to a legitimate one.

Now, like you, I don’t believe they have any such unbroken succession. But, if they don’t, then the Protestant interpretation has even less of a justification. The scriptures you read were chosen by and edited by the Catholic church for over a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation. You’re interpreting documents for which you’ve already denounced the provenance.

I grew up as a Christian. Of course, by your lights, I wasn’t, since my family was Catholic. But, by those lights, there are probably fewer “Christians” in the entire world than there are atheists.

I happen to think that being a Christian is not a good thing, so I’m perfectly happy not to have shown you how to do it.

On the other hand, you’re clearly pretty ignorant about Christianity in general. You’re mired in an ugly little closed-minded mess, and you’ve drunk the kool-aid that says actually considering opposing arguments is evil.