Posted on 10/13/2013 12:01:40 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Expounding on the importance of our actions for salvation is, I suppose, my primary “thing.” I have been in so many informal debates over the issue that I have started to lose count of them. I have written about the topic many times. And often, I become angry (like God in 1 Kings 11:9-10) at the mere thought of sola fide (“faith alone”), because I know that it is completely contrary to “what the Lord [has] commanded.” But why?
“Faith alone” was, without a doubt, the primary reason that I left Protestantism. Even though I was ill-educated in theology at the time, I knew that it was illogical.
I like to think of sola fide in terms of criminal law. Imagine that someone went before a judge and was proven guilty of heinous crimes, but then pleaded to the judge that he believed in the judge's authority to convict him and so the judge should not do so – and had that as his only defense. Should the judge convict him – to any degree – or should the judge completely let him off, and then give him a reward?
Do you find the “faith alone” argument compelling in such an instance? I do not. Of course, a “faith alone”-r would say that there is some sort of significant difference between such a scenario in terms of temporal law and such a scenario in terms of eternal law, but there really is not. Protestant arguments for the belief simply do not stand in the face of such scenarios or substantial scrutiny.
I strongly believe that sola fide is at the heart of many Western problems. Self-professed Christians have used it as an excuse to not care for the disadvantaged, to engage in profane sexual activity, etc. – the list goes on and on.
Martin Luther told his followers to “sin and sin boldly” (among other things, as I have documented) because he taught that we are saved solely by our faith in the power of Jesus Christ, apart from our actions. This method of thinking has been adopted by millions of Protestants since his time. But is it supported by the Bible? No. See Hebrews 10:26-27:
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.”
“Faith alone” has had a terrible impact on society. People often now shy away from discussing religion or morality with others, fearing conflict. Take, for example, something that transpired between a Lutheran family member and me. After I privately and politely informed her that she had committed a grievous sin (like we are called to do – see Matthew 18:15-17, Galatians 6:1, and Ephesians 4:15), she immediately jumped to the “Who are you to judge?” defense and paired it with the “Jesus paid the price” line. I am sure that, for many Catholics, such occurrences are unfortunately familiar.
God has written in our hearts (Romans 2:15) that we should serve Him and others, not our selfish desires -- and we will be punished if we defy Him. The necessity of both good works and abstinence from grave sin gives our lives concrete meaning. If someone takes away the eternal significance of our actions, they rob us of any real purpose: we all just become random, faceless, unimportant beings.
Sola fide does not work either logically or practically; it fails on all counts. Now, you know why I hate it.
(All verses are from the NASB translation.)
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
“There is no belittling here. You had quoted a scriptural saying love of God and love of neighbor) to essentially all what needs and hence this helps undermine the need for the Catholic Church. Each person can simply “ experience” the infinite, whatever this experience means, and nothing further in the form of beliefs, rituals, and the forgiveness of sins is needed.”
In other words, you’re accusing Talisker of being the Pope!
Atheist Reporter: Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?
Pope Francis: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”
Atheist Reporter: Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that’s one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.
Pope Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”
John Paul II, Address, May 22, 2002: “Praise to you, followers of Islam… Praise to you, Jewish people… Praise especially to you, Orthodox Church…”
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 55), Dec. 7, 1990:
“God… does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression…”
“This leads to the Church and its central beliefs including the Eucharist and its celebration in the context of the Catholic Mass. This, is not dogmatic as you appear to imply. Nor is this “bible pounding” to use your phrase. This is based on scripture, tradition, reason, and revelation.”
It gets a bit old how Catholics basically like to tell us what they believe, over and over again, as if it’s some kind of an argument.
As for converts, presumably the millions or so Christians who left the RCC during the Reformation outnumber your few anecdotes here or there. Heck, you guys were mortally wounded by it. Back in the good old days, you didn’t hesitate to burn people at the stake. Now your Pope’s can’t get their lips on an atheist’s butt fast enough. Oh how the mighty have fallen, who once imagined they could raise up kings and bring others down!
The private comments of Popes to extend the mercy of Christ to non-Believers is not something new. Christ himself consorted with the most hated people of His times. But then again, this is typical of low-information Christian believers who are unable to separate the eternal verities expressed by the One true Church and its mortal leaders. Again, we see a pathetic understanding of the doctrine of infallibility.
“The private comments of Popes to extend the mercy of Christ to non-Believers is not something new.”
LOL. The “private” comments of Popes in national interviews not requiring conversion to receive the mercy of Christ, is certainly new and blasphemous.
“Again, we see a pathetic understanding of the doctrine of infallibility.”
Again, we see the cognitive dissonance of Papists who come on FR to spout how they are the one true church of God, even when their own leaders have long since abandoned them!
Oh, how I love Francis! May he grow ever bolder in his heresies!
Again, what we have here are low-information Christians who would call Christ Himself a “heretic” because he consorted with sinners and have no clue on how the Church itself confirmed the authenticity and sacred text we call the Bible It did not fall from the “Protestant” skies); have no understanding of the primacy of Peter and his successors, and instead spout isolated texts for their scriptural understanding.
So why not not choose Jeremiah Wright’s understanding of scripture? Rev. Moon? Bishop TD Jakes? Jimmy Swaggart? Benny Hinn? Robert Schuller (Senior or Junior?), Pat Robertson? or better yet our prosperity gospel $45m fraud, Joel Osteen?
“gain, what we have here are low-information Christians who would call Christ Himself a “heretic” because he consorted with sinners “
Blah blah blah! I’ll go and convert them. You can go and consort with them and tell them how they’re all getting to heaven anyway as long as they “follow the good as their conscience leads them.”
“So why not not choose Jeremiah Wright’s understanding of scripture? Rev. Moon? Bishop TD Jakes? Jimmy Swaggart? Benny Hinn? Robert Schuller (Senior or Junior?), Pat Robertson? or better yet our prosperity gospel $45m fraud, Joel Osteen?”
You may have not gotten the memo, but I believe in Sola Scriptura, so I tend to let the Holy Spirit do the job.
“Sola Scriptura”!!!
Make sure you don’t puck someone’s eyes. And while you are at it, stop forgiving when you get to 490
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.
“Make sure you don’t puck someone’s eyes. And while you are at it, stop forgiving when you get to 490”
I’m sure this statement makes some kind of sense to you, but to normal people, I assure you, it sounds completely irrational.
Well I thought I was clear. I said: "People are purified when they offer their suffering to God, and ask forgiveness. Only human beings can offer their lives, and not just their deaths, to God - all their joys and all their sufferings and all their efforts, moment by moment, day by day."
And you were the one who brought up "blood sacrifice." But that "sacrifice" never seems to end, or maybe it wasn't done right in the first place? After all, you write: "He loves us enough to die for us and pay the penalty for our sin that we cannot pay ourselves." Okay, fine. He died for our sins. So are our sins now gone, or not? If they are gone, why still talk about it? They're gone, we're free.
Or is it that he died to enable us to get rid of our sins if we acted in a certain way? And those actions include following the teachings and sacraments of the Catholic Church, and then, and only then, if we keep it up our whole lives, does it invoke His sacrifice, and then the two together, His sacrifice and the way we lived our lives, combine so as to forgive our sins?
But in the latter case, we are not allowed to look at an entire life of living according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, to fulfill our requirements of His sacrifice, as actually offering anything to God. And that's why you can said "We cannot offer God anything which will provoke forgiveness from God" even in the face of a lifetime of effort.
M'kay. I like my way of saying things better. Because what I'm saying is that God forgives us, and He gave us our lives, filled with all of its struggles, in order to practice using what He's given us, which is the knowledge of His forgiveness. That seems more understandable to me, rather than going on about a blood sacrifice that forgives everything except it doesn't unless you behave in a certain way, and if you behave in that way, you cannot be said to be doing anything that God wants - except that if you don't do it, the blood sacrifice that removes sins doesn't remove your sins.
It does not attract the responding love of God. He loves us. Period. There is nothing that we can do to make Him love us, love us more, or encourage a response to Him.
Ah, here we agree. Yes - He does love us, period. He doesn't have to make any effort - we do. I believe that's why we have lives, to make an effort towards God, not to achieve His love or forgiveness, but to perceive the love and forgiveness He always gives us. And I believe our efforts aren't really our efforts - that our efforts are enabled by, and upheld by, His Grace. So even though it seems like effort and Grace, it's really just all Grace. But from our perspective, we have to keep making the effort until we experience that.
I see us as like amateurs who God is teaching, very patiently. We exert and exert, and get ourselves all messed up. While finished masters or saints live in the same world, facing the same issues, but because they've learned their lessons, they sacrifice their every desire to God, and so are guided constantly towards effortless effort, an effort that is perfectly in line with what God wants, instead of what their ego wants, and so they live in God's peace.
That same peace we have, but which we resist with our own desires and thereby block it from flowing into our lives, and thereby suffer from the results.
And one more thing - and it's not trivial. I'm telling you my beliefs. But are you telling me yours? Or are you telling me your interpretation of Catholic teachings, with the caveat that you are not a certified teacher of Catholic teachings, so anything you get wrong you can walk away from, because all you have to do is be a believer, and not actually own your own words?
That might seem a normal and acceptable state of affairs for you. But try to understand how others perceive it, while you challenge their beliefs - hard - yet never really, directly risk your own personal beliefs at the same time. Frankly, others see it as not quite honest. Nevertheless, it is one of the perks the Church claims to provide. Whether that perk is accepted by God, or not... well, entire wars have been fought over that question.
Yes, it is a done deal. It was done *right* the first time; the curtain was torn and Jesus said "It is finished". It is not continuing.
Okay, fine. He died for our sins. So are our sins now gone, or not? If they are gone, why still talk about it? They're gone, we're free.
That's right. We've been pardoned. The sin debt we owe, death, has been paid by Jesus and we don't owe it any more.
And you're right. Why focus on what God has forgiven? Probably because we're human.
Or is it that he died to enable us to get rid of our sins if we acted in a certain way? And those actions include following the teachings and sacraments of the Catholic Church, and then, and only then, if we keep it up our whole lives, does it invoke His sacrifice, and then the two together, His sacrifice and the way we lived our lives, combine so as to forgive our sins?
Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, not of works so that no man can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) If we could contribute to earning our salvation, then it would leave room for us to boast. If it's all God's doing, the HE gets all the glory.
That seems more understandable to me, rather than going on about a blood sacrifice that forgives everything except it doesn't unless you behave in a certain way, and if you behave in that way, you cannot be said to be doing anything that God wants - except that if you don't do it, the blood sacrifice that removes sins doesn't remove your sins.
That sounds more like Catholic teaching to me.
The blood of animals doesn't remove sin. The blood of Jesus does. For good. And we are then sealed with the promised Holy Spirit until the day of redemption as He is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it.
It is God who works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13)
And one more thing - and it's not trivial. I'm telling you my beliefs. But are you telling me yours? Or are you telling me your interpretation of Catholic teachings, with the caveat that you are not a certified teacher of Catholic teachings, so anything you get wrong you can walk away from, because all you have to do is be a believer, and not actually own your own words?
That might seem a normal and acceptable state of affairs for you. But try to understand how others perceive it, while you challenge their beliefs - hard - yet never really, directly risk your own personal beliefs at the same time. Frankly, others see it as not quite honest. Nevertheless, it is one of the perks the Church claims to provide. Whether that perk is accepted by God, or not... well, entire wars have been fought over that question.
I have made no secret what I believe in. My posting history displays it and I've clearly stated it.
Is there something more you're looking for?
First of all, I want to thank you for not belittling me. Based on what you think is constructive criticism, belittling might have people outside my door with pikes and torches.
Second of all... well... LOL, where do I start? You say a lot of really smart people are Catholics, and became Catholics? Okay, I agree with you. Of course, a lot of really smart people became Protestants, too, reading the same Bible, including the teachings of the same apostles. So without belittling you or anything, does that render that part of your logical, rational argument a, as you said, "facile analysis?"
I note that in the beginning of your response, you said that I had quoted a scriptural saying love of God and love of neighbor to essentially all what needs and hence this helps undermine the need for the Catholic Church.
Now that's not quite true, is it? Because what I actually did was call attention to the fact that that particular scripture was the one that Jesus Himself called "the greatest," and which Jesus Himself said "upon which, hangs all the law." And I noted that those are extraordinary terms, and that it seems that Jesus was being extremely direct and clear in using them. And so, it seemed to me that Jesus was saying, pointedly, that all of His teachings are not "equal," but that this is the greatest, and must be used to interpret all the others (for what other use is a scripture "from which hangs all the law"?).
So you see, that's quite a bit different from what you are saying I said. But then, when you go on to say that ...in His last days on earth, Christ issued what has come to be known as the “Great Commission” which was left out in your facile analysis. His disciples that included Peter and the rest of the apostles carried this mandate by writing letters to various groups expounding and explaining this teaching... I wonder, are you trying to invoke the word "great" in order to deny the superiority of what Christ called His "greatest" teaching? Are you comparing the "great commission" with the "greatest commandment'? And in doing so, are you being not only facile, but invoking verbal trickery?
The "great commission" is a term composed by students of the Bible, which merely means that the apostles were told by Jesus to go and spread His teachings. The "greatest commandment" is a term used by Jesus himself. So it seems that, if the apostles were to follow the "great commission," their purpose would have been, in literal fact, to spread Jesus' "greatest commandment."
These "little" differences count. And you use them a lot. For example, you say: We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite...Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God... To which I reply, how can you use the phrase "no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite"? Is a manifestiation of the infinite, which is God, so trivial to you that it can be dismissed for existing? Or do you believe that God never manifests, and so the very idea is absurd - in which case, what was Jesus, to you?
You go on to say We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite like the cosmos or the adherents of New Age philosophies. Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God. And again I reply, what part of "manifestation of God" do you think is trivial? On the one hand, you easily accept God's infinitude. On the other hand, if that same infinite God should manifest more than once, and if billions of people testify to that manifestation over thousands of years, you feel free to mock them because their manifestation is not your manifestation? No wonder you constantly want to reassure people you're not "belittling" them - it's easy to see why they might believe you are.
...this helps undermine the need for the Catholic Church... In short, we could all have done well without Christ, His apostles, and His Church. Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter (pun intended). It's not so much that you believe in the teachings of the Church - it's that you believe that the teachings of the Church are invalidated if they are not the only true teachings. But once again, I think you're forgetting infinitude here. Jesus was Christ incarnate, and Christ needs no body, because Christ is the infinite Grace of God. So what is so hard about accepting that that infinitude may have "manifested" more than once? What is so hard about seeing the commonality of the teachings across the world, that do not contradict Christ? What is so hard about accepting that Jesus, in calling is simplest and most straightforward commandment His "greatest," wasn't enabling that commonality?
And yet, how does that threaten the Church? What is wrong with seeing the Catholic Church as a specific and special teaching, a path for those chosen to receive it, created by Christ to provide the structure and depth and focus of teachings only for certain people, but not everyone? Did not Jesus tell His disciples that for others, He speaks in parables, but for them He speaks plainly? Didn't Jesus, by this, show that He has different levels of teaching for different groups of people? Did the disciples then go out and teach that anyone who relied on Jesus' parables was wrong? That Jesus' parables threatened the legitimacy of the direct teachings that He gave the apostles? Of course not. So how can you invoke the same faulty logic against the Church?
You also write Do not take this personally, but for you or anyone else to assert that: “The only value of His teachings - any and all of them - are to enable a person to reach God, who is also infinite” exposes the nonsense. Or to quote Chesterton, “he who believes in everything, believes in nothing.” Again, how can I take personally something that makes no sense? How is the personal experience of God, which comes only at the time and in the way God chooses, equivalent to "believing everything, and thus believing nothing." Is God's infinitude the same as "everything," and so per Chesterton (and apparently you), equivalent to "nothing"? I've heard of jesuitical logic, but reducing God's infinity to nothing precisely because it is infinite surely takes the cake.
Also, how does this compare to Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who, while saying Mass, and after almost completing his massive Summa Theologica, had an experience of God's infinitude which was so overwhelming, he refused to finish his masterwork and called it as "nothing" compared to his experience of God. Is that story a fraud because no one can experience God? Does it mean that the infinitude of God is nothing? Did Aquinas render the Catholic Church invalid and void because of his experience? Of course not.
Nor does God have to give such overwhelming experiences to everyone. War is a perfect example, though life itself serves just fine. Many people have experienced God in war, through intense prayer that stress brings, that has changed their lives. many people have experienced God outside of war, because life itself can be ferocious. Do those experiences invalidate the Catholic Church? Of course not. But to hold the experience of God apart from human experience as an anomaly, let alone to mock the concept, is literally the opposite of the very reason people seek spiritual practices - including those practiced by the Catholic Church.
Finally you say, Now if this expostulation reduces your views to absurdity it is not to “belittle” you but to show why your “reasoning” on Christ makes no sense.
The difference between us is that I don't need to "reduce your views to absurdity." To me, your limitations on the ability and desire of God to reach out and personally receive every human being into Divine Love is what is absurd. And your belief that God's infinite variations and creativity somehow threaten the core teachings and value and divine dispensation of the Catholic Church is absurd. But you can rest assured, I do not feel that you have "reduced my views to absurdity." I don't mean to belittle you, but you don't have the ability to do that.
No, I thought you were Catholic, and speaking from the Catholic perspective. My mistake, I was addressing that point of view.
Why focus on what God has forgiven? Probably because we're human.
Why not, being human, instead focus on what Jesus specifically TOLD us to focus on? After all, calling something His "greatest commandment," to me at least, seems to indicate that He was saying, quite literally "this is what I want you to focus on."
And it's not hard to see the divine wisdom in it. After all, what attracts people, talk about dying for sins, or acting in a loving way? What in fact, did Jesus do? Did he tell everyone, "hey, I'm going to die for your sins, so pay attention or you're going to hell"? I mean, He could have, right?
But He didn't teach that way. He taught love and forgiveness and coming to Him, without threats. And then he told us, specifically - "Love one another AS I have loved you." In other words, "teach each other as I have taught you." Which does NOT mean threats, it means love.
And that is exactly what "non-believers" cite as why they stay away from Christians. The damnation, instead of the love and forgiveness.
As a result, look at the abortions, and look at the government going communist - because people turn away from Jesus' love.
Yet Christians cling to the damnation. They pound the Bible and defend it here, here, here and there. But Jesus taught that ALL of the law hangs from His greatest commandment: love God, and love one another as He loved us. That means ALL that damnation comes AFTER the love - NOT before it.
And to those who refuse this, he was also clear: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
What a pointless debate.
You cannot tell people of their need for a Savior without telling about WHY they need Him. Even Jesus warned people about hell.
Delivery is everything, although, the way He spoke to the Pharisees and how He cleansed the Temple twice would be soundly condemned by the church today if someone acted like that.
Christians have been irresponsible about how they’ve gotten the message across though. They can’t expect non-Christians to behave like Christians because they can’t. They’re slaves to sin. They have not been set free.
Besides, cleaning up their lives doesn’t matter one iota if they don’t come to Jesus. Too many Christians in the past have focused on the wrong thing; fixing up the outward behavior without taking care of the inward man. It’s a waste of time.
There is so much in your post that I will not attempt to write a treatise in rebuttal.
But a reply is warranted for what you have to say here when you take issue with my statement:
For example, in my rebuttal to you, you quote me saying: We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite...Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God...
To which YOU reply, how can you use the phrase “no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite”? Is a manifestiation of the infinite, which is God, so trivial to you that it can be dismissed for existing? Or do you believe that God never manifests, and so the very idea is absurd - in which case, what was Jesus, to you?
No Sir. You are trying to make out that Christ is one more manifestation of the infinite and I reject that line of thinking. This is New Age philosophy differently dressed up. if that were the case there would be little point in His dwelling among us as the incarnate word of God. He could have remained in Heavens and make all His creations, the sun, moon, and the starts be His “manifestation” of the infinite as you call it. That would be at trivialization of His passion, death, and resurrection.
Christ is not “another” manifestation of the infinite. Christ IS the infinite God himself. This is based on faith and reason. Several thousands of intellectuals, theologians, scientists, mathematicians, and astronomers who accept Him and His Church did not blindly accept His teachings. It was based on faith and reason. This was the center piece of Benedict’s famous address at the University of Regensburg, Germany that led to Muslim riots.
The point that a god is impotent in being unable to deliver a precise message that its followers don’t have to squabble over. You don’t need verbose overthinking to see this, just have to make better use of your (presumed to exist) ability to think and analyse.
Which is what I perceived, thus my response, as everything must be equally clear, as if ambiguity serves no purpose, but that is your atheistic fallacy. Since believers squabble over meanings in Scripture then you find it contrary to Scripture being Divine, as if it served no warranted purpose, and thus conclude its God is impotent to deliver a precise message, and is contrary to the existence of its God.
Yet while you demand god make things precisely clear, you yourself did not make it clear what the rich irony was that you saw in squabbling over the interpretation of “divine scripture,” and refused 2 requests to clarify that, leaving me to correctly guess, understanding the atheistic mindset. However, in a debate, ascertaining what a opponent meant is warranted.
Yet while you may have had no purpose behind your brevity, yet lack of clarity is not contrary to Scriptures being Divine, nor does it mean its God is not able to deliver a precise message, as He did so no multitude times in Scripture.
Atheists seem to think that if God wanted man to be saved then He would leave no room for misapprehension, yet as seen in Scripture, God is not simply seeking to save souls but for souls which want the Truth of God.
For the Truth of God is like a veiled women, in which basic outward form is evident yet much is hidden, and requires seeking. And which prepares the the heart for proper and appreciative receiving, in contrast to the women who simply bares all to the carnally minded who demand it. And which atheists do who demand God perform for them what they require in order for them to believe.
Thus the Lord often spoke in parables, and then explained them to those who did obey what they did know.
And while you demand God speak precisely in Scripture if He is real, yet God made it exceedingly supernaturally manifest that He was real, and what they were to do, in bringing the Hebrews out of Egypt. There could be no atheist among them (though there are hardly seems any limit to the extent some will go to in order to disallow even the existence of God even as a hypothesis). However, this clarity did not make them all true believers, which only a remnant were.
For it is not the proud and arrogant that seek the Lord, but those who of a poor and contrite heart, who want to obey the light God gives them, who find the Truth, even Christ. And ultimately rejection of Christ, even by rejecting light that would lead to Him, is because men love sin more than Him.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)
You don’t need verbose overthinking to see this, just have to make better use of your (presumed to exist) ability to think and analyse.
It is typical of the few atheist i have dealt with to assume a God-like superiority, despite their blindness and refusal to allow any explanation that counters theirs. Which is consistent with worship of self, which atheism leads to.
The point you keep missing is that those squabbling over the message are the very same “people of faith”.
It takes a powerless god to produce instructions full of ambiguity that its followers derive diametrically opposed interpretations from, and war against each other in their faith that they got it right while the other has it wrong, rendering the messages fully defenseless against the whims of human interpretation, as if those instructions were composed by mere humans.
Your verbose gibberish hasn’t accounted for this phenomenal failure in “divine” delivery.
“It takes a powerless god to produce instructions full of ambiguity that its followers derive diametrically opposed interpretations from, and war against each other in their faith that they got it right while the other has it wrong, rendering the messages fully defenseless against the whims of human interpretation, as if those instructions were composed by mere humans.
Your verbose gibberish hasn’t accounted for this phenomenal failure in “divine” delivery.”
These are incredibly weak arguments, and do not in any way deserve the arrogance implicit in this post. It’s not very intelligent at all. Human beings are able to dispute even the definition of what sex is, if you’re Bill Clinton, and are full of all kinds of absurd arguments and destruction of plain meanings to justify themselves. It doesn’t mean that the human language itself is incapable of giving clear meaning. It just means that human beings believe what they want, regardless of the facts.
No, the argument is totally valid.
If two believers interpret one “divine” message to mean opposing things, in the full innocence of their faith, then the failure is on the entity making the message. Human whim is such a big factor in interpreting such vague and self-contradictory messages that people have lived and died fully believing they interpreted right, and the other, wrongly. Who is the arbiter? Other humans? Pathetic.
Your counter against the above is ridiculously nonsensical, and not fully thought through.
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.
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.