Search results for query: *

That's fine. You're free to disagree with me. Well, here's the thing: I don't think the average Christian needs to have the nuts and bolts down because the average person shouldn't have to constantly question their beliefs, constantly study. Yes, the contemplative life is superior to the...

The same. However, the way the narrative is structured demonstrates a commonsense truth: that people can't truly understand Scripture without someone who can instruct them.

Yes. It's a good book. We both read the same passage, but we got different meanings out of it, Scottty. Either one of us is right, or neither of us is right. How is "reading comprehension" going to magically get us to the correct passage? Unless you mean something different by that phrase.

How is your interpretation the plain interpretation and mine wasn't? Is there some methodology for determining it?

"Do you understand what you are reading?" "How can I, unless someone explains it to me?" How could we not see the implication? The eunuch, being unable to know the true meaning of Scripture on his own, requires Philip, a man blessed by God to teach him. When he has been taught and baptized by...

I wasn't even mischaracterizing the Protestant position, first off. I was talking about the logical consequences of "Bible Alone." The Bible alone cannot tell you which books are in the Bible or how to interpret the Bible or how to apply the interpretations in modern circumstances. If Sola...

Yes, they can't be defended from Scripture if you come at the Scripture with Protestant assumptions. Which is sort of the problem with arguing with Protestants, since they can't follow their own rule consistently since it's impossible to follow such a rule consistently. Protestants cannot tell...

Other than this post, I haven't talked to Paradise Lost since we came to our understanding. Not everyone here is so closed-minded. Or at least, I hope not.

Here's the deal: the understanding is a two-way street. It's a dialectic. If they are able to post things like this: Or this: Then they clearly don't want to understand what I believe in. They just want to score cheap gotchas. And I don't abide by that.

I'm an egotistical troll... for wanting to learn about other people's ideas? You aren't making much sense.

The purpose of a lot of political bickering is to satisfy egos, to be the "winner" of a debate. If you change your mind in the midst of a debate, then you didn't really believe in that position to begin with. A person's political beliefs are downstream from their ethical values, their sense of...

Well, I don't believe that people actually do change their minds by debating, even under the best circumstances.

Probably the biggest misrepresentation of the Catholic position. The idea that the Protestants just went back to the Bible and didn’t add in any of their own idiosyncrasies is kind of what we’d deny. What we would say is that the kind of textual anarchy caused by saying “nobody’s interpretation...

That is the Protestant view of things. The Catholic view of things is that these "later additions" are a natural evolution of doctrine, and that the Protestant theology was an incoherent mess used by secular princes as an excuse to seize Church property for their own ends. I'll also add that...

And I'm not debating someone who thinks begging the question isn't fallacious. Understand, if the argument is literally about whether apostolic succession is Biblical, and you say "it's not Biblical because it just isn't," then that doesn't actually advance your argument. Also...

This is dishonest, and you know it's dishonest. It just is. See, I can "argue" like you do too. When you are ready to admit your dishonesty, I'll talk to you. Until then, it's clear that you aren't willing to talk to people who disagree with you.

Paradise, you didn't provide any arguments for why I should even consider your position. "Because there isn't" isn't an argument. However, you did say something very interesting that I believe lies at the heart of our disagreement. This is a solid philosophical position... that I reject...

Assertion after assertion. No arguments given. Why ought we believe there is no official interpretation? Why ought we believe that there is no Biblical basis for apostolic succession? Why ought we believe that the average layperson with little knowledge of philosophy, theology, or history would...

Dogmatism can be vice if done to excess. Certainly, you should hold to beliefs that are actual dogmas and respect them as such, but you shouldn't turn non-dogmas into dogmas or let dogma interfere with rational dialogue. Quite frankly, your admitted inability to talk to someone who disagrees...

Well, yes. Because you are such a dogmatist that you can't have a meaningful conversation with people who disagree with you substantially.