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.
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.