I do doubt that sometimes, especially when the Protestant/Baptist side speaks of Christ as subordinate to the Father, or when the Holy Spirit is "pushed" to the third place in a "hierarchical Trinity." There is the Monarchy of the Father in that He is the only One without the cause, and in the fact that He is not begotten, but this is not subordination or tiering of the Divine Hypostases.
Normally, we offer scripture as proof. Some like it, some do not.
Those who believe do not need proof. Those who believe do not believe because of the Bible. The Bible does not give anyone faith. So, offering the scripture as "proof" is either proving something you already believe, and therefore do not need proof, or trying to prove something to those who don't believe when they were not given faith. In either case it's not a matter of taste.
I didn't put it together, but as I found it, it all fits well enough together for me
If it is your personal religion, then I have to concur. The problem is the faith given to us is catholic and not personal.
I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit
No, discrepancies are quite obvious. The problem is reconciling them, which can be done within a historical, cultural and linguistic context of the time when the scriptures were written. In doping so, they lose some of their fairytalish qualities and become a window into the past.
To me it is like saying to an atheist that he has more faith than I do to believe that there is NOT a God
Atheism is the ultimate solipsism, self-love, self-centerdness, self-importance. It makes the personal "I" into the ultimate arbiter of everything and all; a self-made "god." It is a delusion.
That doesn't mean that some private interpretations of the Bible are any less of a delusion. Let's not forget that theological giants such as Origen and Tertullian succumbed to grave errors, and they knew the scriptures forwards and backwards.
Those who believe do not need proof.
Then why do you continually ask for it, especially on matters of the truth of scriptures?
Those who believe do not believe because of the Bible. The Bible does not give anyone faith. So, offering the scripture as "proof" is either proving something you already believe, and therefore do not need proof, or trying to prove something to those who don't believe when they were not given faith. In either case it's not a matter of taste.
Yours is a blind faith, so perhaps you believe "just because" or "just because the Church says". Ours is a reasoned faith. God gives faith, but He uses tools such as the Bible to give that faith meaning. The Bible explains what exactly our faith is in, and that it can (does) make sense to us.
The problem is the faith given to us is catholic and not personal.
Ah, I did not know that "catholic" meant an impersonal God. I thought that was just your take. Fascinating.
FK: "I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit."
No, discrepancies are quite obvious. The problem is reconciling them, which can be done within a historical, cultural and linguistic context of the time when the scriptures were written. In doing so, they lose some of their fairytalish qualities and become a window into the past.
I've seen what is left after some of this "cleansing" is done. Not pretty. It is unrecognizable compared to what the Bible teaches. No thanks. :)