My faith is not something that I can demonstrate on a forum.
And yet, you persist in trying.
At what point was scottb “fair” to protestants or Catholics?
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.
They have no concrete understanding or revelation about Jesus, or being a Christian for the reasons that Scott just said, solo scriptora…or the lack there-of, that’s the most damnable doctrine there is, if I don’t have to depend on the scriptures then I have made myself God
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.
In any case, Scott hasn’t demonstrated that he knows anything at all about being a Christian and he hasn’t revealed anything new to me about Catholicism or Christianity.
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.
Is someone just going through the site marking you and Occams’ comments down? I realize you probably don’t care, but the Nerd-It system shouldn’t be an “I don’t like what you are saying” vote.
If the post makes sense and makes some kind of point, then the most that should be done is not vote it “up”.
What is with all the ranking down? by Jackson :: NR7 :: Show
Is someone just going through the site marking you and Occams’ comments down? I realize you probably don’t care, but the Nerd-It system shouldn’t be an “I don’t like what you are saying” vote.
If the post makes sense and makes some kind of point, then the most that should be done is not vote it “up”.