Kosta, by your own admission, you’re not even sure God exists. Previous posts of yours indicate a disbelief in Scripture and its authenticity and validity and inspiration.
Two points result from that.
One is that since you appear to have rejected it as a point of authority or even of fact, you have disqualified yourself from speaking authoritatively on it.
The other is that esquirette ought to know your postitions on Scripture and God.
esquirette, you are correct in your assessment of what the Catholic church does concerning Scripture. The RC church is trying to lay claim as the only way to God with these assertions. Since the average lay person is (according to the Catholic church) incapable of interpreting Scripture correctly himself, as evidenced by kosta’s assertions here as well, then of necessity, it claims that since it is responsible for the Bible, it is the only entity which can properly interpret it.
Of course, the fact that almost 2,000 years have passed between the men who consolidated Scripture into one convenient, easy to access resource, and the men now who claim authority to be the ones to *correctly* interpret it, is rather irrelevant in Catholic’s eyes.
INDEED. WELL PUT.
Many people claim that God exists and even to know God, but their descriptions of who or what that God differ like night and day. Even those who supposedly believe in the same God seem to have difficulty agreeing on this, as is blatantly obvious from discussions seen on this Forum.
However, that doesn't stop them from claiming that their version of their God is the only right and truthful version, although they have nothing to prove it with except by saying that it's true because they say so! That's a very weak argument, dear mom, pathetically weak.
Why should I believe any group, or an individual, based on such feeble if not childish "evidence".
Previous posts of yours indicate a disbelief in Scripture and its authenticity and validity and inspiration.
But, mom, different religious groups indicate disbelief in the validity of the scriptures of others! Warring faction even within the same group of believers use the same "scriptures" to prove their rivals wrong! There are as many interpretations of the "scriptures" as there are believers, or so it seems! So, why should I believe your version?
Two points result form that. One is that since you appear to have rejected it as a point of authority or even of fact, you have disqualified yourself from speaking authoritatively on it.
I have rejected it because I don't know which group to believe, and because all indicators are that, while various scriptures, Jewish, Christian, LDS, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.—while claiming "revelation"—all appear to be man-made, and full of holes, copyist interventions, interpolations, etc.
As for my "disqualification," you may wish to rethink this conclusion, dear mom, because frankly it comes across as something rather asinine, imo. According to your logic, we could say that, since you rejected the Roman Catholic Church, you have "disqualified" yourself from authoritatively disputing anything Catholic! But the fact is that you continue to dispute, even dismiss Roman Catholic theology, doctrines and beliefs, as if you are qualified to do so!
Since when does one have to believe something to authoritatively speak on the subject? The authority comes from the knowledge of the subject, and how much knowledge one has is not determined by how much one believes in it.