Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2012, 07:18 PM #274
Bnonn
Little Fox
 
Bnonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Such a simple explanation of why Sola Scriptura is unbiblical....it comes down to interpretation of Scripture and who has the authority to interpret Scripture. Although I admit, I am not ready to head down that path of explanation/reasoning. It is nonetheless an option which I need to read-up on myself. The only thing I'd add to the above is Sola Scriptura is the reason why we have literally tens and thousands of different Christian denominations with no two denomination having the same exact doctrine or Scripture interpretations.
Hey RLN, a few comments/questions for you...

1. Since under the New Covenant every Christian is both a temple of the Holy Spirit and a royal priest (1 Peter 2:4-10), why should we think that every Christian does not have the authority to interpret Scripture?

2. You follow this comment with three Bible verses. But if none of us have the authority to interpret them, how do you know they say what you think they say? How do you know they prove what you believe they prove?

A. If you know because the Church has authoritatively interpreted them for you, how do you know their interpretation is authoritative? Do you have the authority to judge their claim to be the authoritative interpreter of Scripture? If so, where does this authority come from? If not, aren't you up a creek without a paddle?

B. Even assuming you can interpret them, you've indicated we don't have the requisite authority for that. So why did you cite them in the first place? Isn't trying to prove something from Scripture just a tacit admission to the Protestant doctrines of perspecuity and individual interpretive authority?

3. Please cite a source for the "literally tens and thousands of different Christian denominations". By my count there are only about a dozen with any significant doctrinal disagreements.

A. Since the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are also just denominations, how do you escape the obvious tu quoque argument that church splits started in Rome? Trying to evade by appealing to Magisterial authority would just beg the very question at hand.

B. Assuming there really are thousands of different denominations, so what? I assume you think there's some kind of argument buried in there, but I wonder what it is.

C. Most Catholics disbelieve key Catholic doctrines. For example, in Ireland, only 26% of Catholics believe the eucharist becomes Christ's literal body, 77% believe women should be allowed to be ordained, and over 60% believe homosexuality is morally permissible (see http://j.mp/X4Q61c and http://j.mp/12WZKT0 for example). Equally, there are noted Catholic theologians like Hans KŁng who, were they Protestant, would fall onto the far liberal end of the spectrum. Yet none of these people are excommunicated or subjected to church discipline. So Catholicism tolerates the exact same doctrinal diversity that they criticize in Protestantism; they simply conceal it behind a facade of church unity. That being the case, why should we take Roman claims about doctrinal unity seriously? Aren't they just hypocritical window-dressing?
Bnonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 12-29-2012, 07:23 PM #275
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
So much fluff and rhetoric, so little substance. No one is forcing churches to promote contraception.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:21 PM #276
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
So much fluff and rhetoric, so little substance. No one is forcing churches to promote contraception.
By making it mandatory that these groups must pay insurance companies for contraceptives and abortions you are forcing these churches, non-profit organizations, and businesses to participate in something that is against their beliefs.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 03:53 AM #277
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Churches are excluded, the rest are employers of people of all different religions. They must provide the option in the course of medical treatment and as I've said before where's your Christian outrage at JW's being forced to provide the option of blood transfusion?
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 08:13 AM #278
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
Churches are excluded, the rest are employers of people of all different religions. They must provide the option in the course of medical treatment and as I've said before where's your Christian outrage at JW's being forced to provide the option of blood transfusion?
First of all, JWs are not required by law to receive blood transfusions. That is the issue they have and the US courts have upheld their right to refuse medical treatment involving blood transfusions. I've not come across any information wherein they are forced to provide blood transfusions.

F1VENOM - if you've actually read the links I've posted so far you'll see that the narrow definition that the HHS mandate uses to exempt churches basically excludes religious organizations and charities such as hospitals, clinics, homeless shelters, universities, soup kitchens, orphanages, and other charities because these are not "house of worships." That's the problem...these organizations are formed and run from a religious perspective. That's why the churches are against the HHS mandate. This is not just about contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion. This is about religious freedom and it is why Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews have all come together to stand against this.

F1VENOM - it's your choice to use contraceptives, get sterilized, or have an abortion. But don't expect me to pay for it.

Here's a link from the Becket Fund which is a law firm: http://www.becketfund.org/fact-check...e-hhs-mandate/

As far as I'm concerned this discussion is over.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004

Last edited by RLN : 12-30-2012 at 08:56 AM.
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 09:49 AM #279
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Hi,
Since I've not met you and you appear to be new on here let me first say welcome to the Christ Krew thread. I assume since your location is New Zealand your friends with vijil? Anyways thanks for the questions/comments/info. I'll do my best to answer them from a Catholic perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
Hey RLN, a few comments/questions for you...

1. Since under the New Covenant every Christian is both a temple of the Holy Spirit and a royal priest (1 Peter 2:4-10), why should we think that every Christian does not have the authority to interpret Scripture?
First lets make it clear, when I challenge other Christians on who's authority they interpret Scripture I am not saying you should not read the Bible. Just want to make that very clear as I know that Catholicism has been accused of telling it's members not to the read the Bible. I think everyone should read the Bible but within the proper context. Not everyone is a theologian and not everyone should be making a exegesis on the Bible. Just so that everyone is clear on this.

If every Christian had the authority to interpret Scripture than why the many differing doctrines? Why the thousands of churches out there? How do we account for the cults like the Branch Davidians under David Koresh? They claim to have the Holy Spirit guiding them in their interpretations. Or the Jehovah Witnesses who claim their interpretation of Scripture is correct. Obviously we all can't be correct. And obviously we've seen some crazy interpretations and extremism like the Branch Davidians and now the Westboro Baptists.

Yes under the New Covenant we are called to be temples of the Holy Spirit and Priest but we are not called to interpret Scripture on our own. No where in those verses does it say that. In fact Peter says: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) He also later warns: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
2. You follow this comment with three Bible verses. But if none of us have the authority to interpret them, how do you know they say what you think they say? How do you know they prove what you believe they prove?
When it comes to interpretation obviously some passages are easier to interpret than others. But let's say none of these verses are easier to interpret where do we turn for answers? As established earlier as Scripture tells us we turn to the Church. It is the Church that guides us in interpreting the Scriptures correctly. Lest we fall into error and preach false doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
A. If you know because the Church has authoritatively interpreted them for you, how do you know their interpretation is authoritative? Do you have the authority to judge their claim to be the authoritative interpreter of Scripture? If so, where does this authority come from? If not, aren't you up a creek without a paddle?
Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles as shown in Scripture. Jesus didn't just leave us on our own. He purposely chose the Apostles to continue guiding His church when he left this world. Scripture even shows the apostles selecting amongst the community leaders to continue their work. Or are you saying that we shouldn't follow Scripture and the Apostles Jesus chose? It is quite clear that the early Christians followed and listened to the leaders of the early Church as shown in Scripture and other early Christian and non-christian documents of the time. If you need me to cite early Christian writings I can. It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that determined the Canon of Scripture. You'd think that the Church which gave us the Bible would also have the authority to interpret it as well.

The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early*Christian Doctrines, 37).*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
B. Even assuming you can interpret them, you've indicated we don't have the requisite authority for that. So why did you cite them in the first place? Isn't trying to prove something from Scripture just a tacit admission to the Protestant doctrines of perspecuity and individual interpretive authority?
See answer to previous question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
3. Please cite a source for the "literally tens and thousands of different Christian denominations". By my count there are only about a dozen with any significant doctrinal disagreements.
A quick “Google” search you literally see the numbers coming around 30,000-40,000 Christian denominations depending on the study.

Here's a link to a PDF file on a study done by a Protestant school: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...GXkib1 415gWA

If there were only a dozen significant doctrinal disagreements (would love to see your source) then why have such a huge number of Christian denominations? It's clear that the differences between each Christian church is enough so that they chose to be separated from one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
A. Since the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are also just denominations, how do you escape the obvious tu quoque argument that church splits started in Rome? Trying to evade by appealing to Magisterial authority would just beg the very question at hand.
Not sure what your getting at here? If anything your question proves my point. There was only one church prior to the schism in 1000 AD and then the reformation in 1500 AD. Even now Rome recognizes the Eastern Orthodox churches to be in communion with Rome calling them the “left lung” of the Church. That one Church not only gave us the Bible but also had apostolic succession. For centuries that one church guided and guarded Christian teaching against the various onslaughts of paganism and heresy. It was that Church that defined doctrines that Christians hold to today such as the Trinity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
B. Assuming there really are thousands of different denominations, so what? I assume you think there's some kind of argument buried in there, but I wonder what it is.
Again it just proves my point the fallacy of Sola Scriptura or Bible Alone doctrine. Everyone has their own interpretation claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit and having the correct interpretation. It's because of Sola Scriptura that we have all these various interpretations that have led to the 40+ thousand denominations out there. Again see my answers to your questions above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
C. Most Catholics disbelieve key Catholic doctrines. For example, in Ireland, only 26% of Catholics believe the eucharist becomes Christ's literal body, 77% believe women should be allowed to be ordained, and over 60% believe homosexuality is morally permissible (see http://j.mp/X4Q61c and http://j.mp/12WZKT0 for example). Equally, there are noted Catholic theologians like Hans KŁng who, were they Protestant, would fall onto the far liberal end of the spectrum. Yet none of these people are excommunicated or subjected to church discipline. So Catholicism tolerates the exact same doctrinal diversity that they criticize in Protestantism; they simply conceal it behind a facade of church unity. That being the case, why should we take Roman claims about doctrinal unity seriously? Aren't they just hypocritical window-dressing?
This last one is a tough one. As I believe the greatest case against Catholicism is Catholics themselves. It's no secret that many Catholics go against church teaching in areas like contraception, abortion, pre-marital sex and more recently homosexuality, married priesthood, and female clergy. But does that mean the Catholic Church should change it's teachings? Does that mean the Catholic Church should water down the truth and authentic Christianity because the masses disagree with it? After all, many Protestant Churches who had the same stances as the Catholic Church on contraception, same-sex marriage, and abortion have now changed their doctrines on these matters. It's precisely for these reasons I remain a Catholic. In the midst of chaos both within and outside the Roman Catholic Church that the Roman Catholic Church stands defiant to the pressures of this world to forgo the truth of God's love and mercy. The Catholic Church has seen the rise and fall of governments for over 2000 years. Throughout history the Church continues to safe guard the truth of the Gospel and continues to be a beacon of hope and light in this world of darkness and lies.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004

Last edited by RLN : 12-30-2012 at 10:26 AM.
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 02:33 PM #280
Bnonn
Little Fox
 
Bnonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Zealand
Hey RLN, thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I'm an old friend of Vijil's

Re your post, there are a lot of disparate issues on the table right now. I think we'd get a very sprawling and difficult discussion if I tried to address them all -- so I'm just going to focus on the one or two that really cut to the core of our disagreement. Hope that's okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLN
Not everyone is a theologian and not everyone should be making a exegesis on the Bible. Just so that everyone is clear on this.
I agree, but interpreting the Bible doesn't mean doing exegesis yourself, or being a theologian. It means being able to weigh the arguments of exegetes and theologians to see which is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLN
If every Christian had the authority to interpret Scripture than why the many differing doctrines?
You seem to be conflating authority and infallibility. But why think that one entails the other? The authority to interpret does not guarantee the ability to interpret perfectly. It merely means we are authorized, as it were, to read and understand the Bible as individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLN
Yes under the New Covenant we are called to be temples of the Holy Spirit and Priest but we are not called to interpret Scripture on our own. No where in those verses does it say that. In fact Peter says: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of oneís own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) He also later warns: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)
But your argument is obviously self-contradictory. Who were the original interpreters of Peter's letter? Was it not the people of the church to whom he was writing? Do you think he expected them to be able to read and understand the meaning of his words? That seems obviously so. So something must be wrong with your exegesis here.

And notice how we ourselves are involved in the process of interpreting Scripture right now, without need of recourse to some other authority. Thus, I can point out that Peter is referring to the giving of prophecy (which is his shorthand for any inspired word), and not the reading and understanding of it. It's puzzling that you wouldn't have noticed this, since it's quite clear when you keep reading:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Peter 1:20-21
...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Being carried along by the Holy Spirit sound suspiciously similar to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, don'tcha think? So Peter is saying that no Scripture was ever produced on the basis of human opinion, but rather was breathed out by the Holy Spirit.

Now, if you believe you are able to evaluate the basic counter-argument I just gave, without having to consult the Magisterium, then it would seem that you believe you have the authority to interpret Scripture, since evaluating arguments about the text is a key element of interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLN
But let's say none of these verses are easier to interpret where do we turn for answers? As established earlier as Scripture tells us we turn to the Church. It is the Church that guides us in interpreting the Scriptures correctly. Lest we fall into error and preach false doctrine.
But this is obviously self-refuting. If we can interpret Scripture enough to conclusively know that we need the Church to interpret it for us, then by definition we don't need the Church to interpret it for us! You are trying to eat your cake and still have it too. Either we have the authority to interpret Scripture as individuals, in which case we don't require a Magisterium, or we don't have that authority, in which case we can't even know that Scripture points us to the Magisterium. You simply can't have it both ways. So which horn of the dilemma will you choose?

I think this really gets to the core incoherence in Catholic doctrine. And if Catholicism is self-refuting on this fundamental point, then side-issues like the canon and demoninations and so on are basically irrelevant, because a self-refuting theology is false by definition, and so whatever the answer is to these other issues, it obviously can't be found in Catholicism.
Bnonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:10 PM #281
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLN View Post
First of all, JWs are not required by law to receive blood transfusions. That is the issue they have and the US courts have upheld their right to refuse medical treatment involving blood transfusions. I've not come across any information wherein they are forced to provide blood transfusions.

F1VENOM - if you've actually read the links I've posted so far you'll see that the narrow definition that the HHS mandate uses to exempt churches basically excludes religious organizations and charities such as hospitals, clinics, homeless shelters, universities, soup kitchens, orphanages, and other charities because these are not "house of worships." That's the problem...these organizations are formed and run from a religious perspective. That's why the churches are against the HHS mandate. This is not just about contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion. This is about religious freedom and it is why Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews have all come together to stand against this.

F1VENOM - it's your choice to use contraceptives, get sterilized, or have an abortion. But don't expect me to pay for it.

Here's a link from the Becket Fund which is a law firm: http://www.becketfund.org/fact-check...e-hhs-mandate/

As far as I'm concerned this discussion is over.
They're not forced but they have the option, and that's my point. No one is forcing employers to USE contraceptives, merely give their employees the option.

You seem to confuse the purpose of the organizations you list. They may be used as a vehicle for adherence to religious tenets but the services they provide aren't religious unlike a church. They're businesses that provide services and employ indiscriminately and as such have to respect every religion, including those without. Simply making the option available isn't religious discrimination, it's the opposite.

Oh and I've read your links but they're huge on appeals and light on facts. The last link is nothing more than what I've been saying the while time.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:53 PM #282
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
They're not forced but they have the option, and that's my point. No one is forcing employers to USE contraceptives, merely give their employees the option.

You seem to confuse the purpose of the organizations you list. They may be used as a vehicle for adherence to religious tenets but the services they provide aren't religious unlike a church. They're businesses that provide services and employ indiscriminately and as such have to respect every religion, including those without. Simply making the option available isn't religious discrimination, it's the opposite.

Oh and I've read your links but they're huge on appeals and light on facts. The last link is nothing more than what I've been saying the while time.
You seem to not understand that when you require someone to pay or provide medical services that are against their religious beliefs it's a violation against our religious freedoms. Contraceptives are every where and readily available. Sterilization and abortion procedures are unfortunately readily available as well. Why then require that these be made mandatory in insurance plans when they have no real medical value other than convenience?

The link I posted from the law firm clearly shows whats wrong with the HHS mandate from the legal view of lawyers. Obviously you refuse to even consider these facts even when presented from a professional legal point of view.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 05:42 PM #283
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Exist only for convenience? It's starting to make sense now, you're ignorant about reproductive issues. Birth control is a viable medical treatment for more than a few issues and abortions save lives daily from birth complications. Are you against synthetic testosterone? It can cause sterility and is used as a birth control method. Where's the pitchforks? Still waiting for the picthforks for blood transfusions. What about pig valves being an option?
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 05:53 PM #284
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
F1VENOM - You are free to use contraceptives, have abortions, get sterilized...just don't expect me to pay for these procedures.

I've even answered the JWs question? In fact my immediate supervisor is not only a JWs but his wife and two sons are full-time mission workers and he said there is nothing in law that forces them to have blood transfusions or to donate blood.

I could spend all day posting links stating the contrary but I suspect that because these links don't "fit" your understanding you immediately write them off.

There's not much more to discuss with you as we are clearly not going to come to an agreement other than to agree to disagree.

This conversation is over. I wish you a good day sir.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:01 PM #285
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
I'm pointing out the fact that you already pay for these things but you ignore it. I point out it's an option for JW's, you agree that it's okay, yet in the same paragraph go on about how it's not okay for contraceptive options. You seem to think the contraceptives are mandatory and they're not, they're simply an option in the course of medical treatment.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:26 PM #286
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
I'm pointing out the fact that you already pay for these things but you ignore it. I point out it's an option for JW's, you agree that it's okay, yet in the same paragraph go on about how it's not okay for contraceptive options. You seem to think the contraceptives are mandatory and they're not, they're simply an option in the course of medical treatment.
Was abortion a basic coverage by the health insurance industry prior to the HHS mandate? I don't think so.

If you can at least respect this point of view:

If someone feels that a medical procedure is against their religious moral views and then they are told that someone else who holds an entirely different moral view wants the same procedure and that they have to pay for it...i.e. be an accomplice to that person committing an act that they believe is morally wrong...is that not forcing someone to forgo their religious tenets?

That's the point I'm making.

In any case I've also come to realize something during this discussion. For large religious institutions such as the Catholic church even if we won a legal battle it may only benefit large institutions that are large enough and can afford to either self-insure or broker a deal with one of the health insurance companies so that their medical insurance packages do not provide such coverages. Smaller religious institutions however are not in the same boat. They more than likely cannot self-insure and are too small to have any negotiating power with the health insurance companies. They'll simply be stuck with whatever health insurance package plans is offered to them regardless if it does cover procedures that they find morally wrong and against their religious beliefs.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:31 PM #287
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
You already pay for other people's abortions and contraception by paying taxes and having healthcare. Abortions certainly are basic and covered by healthcare in the event of complications with birth and other high risk situations. Why aren't you boycotting private insurance and the alike?
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:55 PM #288
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Originally Posted by RLN
Not everyone is a theologian and not everyone should be making a exegesis on the Bible. Just so that everyone is clear on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
I agree, but interpreting the Bible doesn't mean doing exegesis yourself, or being a theologian. It means being able to weigh the arguments of exegetes and theologians to see which is right..
If this is true than why do even Protestants send their own future pastors/ministers to some sort of seminary or college level Bible courses? If the Holy Spirit can guide every Christian in infallibly interpreting Scripture than there should not be a need for seminaries or religious studies and Biblical classes in college. Whatís the point of there even being Biblical scholars and theologians who study the Hebrew and Greek languages in order to study the oldest texts available? If your statement is true then thereís no point in all this scholarly research and study of the Bible since the Holy Spirit will give a Christian all he or she needs to infallibly interpret Scripture. Furthermore why even have pastors or ministers to preach to us? All a Christian needs to do is pick-up the Bible, pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance, and ďAlleluia!Ē they are automatically able to interpret Scripture and make their own exegesis.

Originally Posted by RLN
If every Christian had the authority to interpret Scripture than why the many differing doctrines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
You seem to be conflating authority and infallibility. But why think that one entails the other? The authority to interpret does not guarantee the ability to interpret perfectly. It merely means we are authorized, as it were, to read and understand the Bible as individuals..
You just admitted that Christians are not guaranteed to interpret the Scriptures perfectly. But you previously said the Holy Spirit had given everyone the ability to interpret Scripture? Which one is it? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit gives us an imperfect ability to interpret Scripture? Again, I am not saying you canít read the Bible and have some basic understanding as an individual. What I am saying is as individuals, unless we are properly instructed and guided, we cannot interpret Scripture and say itís the correct interpretation when our interpretation is clearly opposite of what the Church says. Reading the Bible and trying as an individual to understand it is one thing. Making doctrines and dogmas based on your interpretation without any guidelines and formal study is another thing. Especially when it contradicts centuries of Christian theologians.

Originally Posted by RLN
Yes under the New Covenant we are called to be temples of the Holy Spirit and Priest but we are not called to interpret Scripture on our own. No where in those verses does it say that. In fact Peter says: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of oneís own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) He also later warns: "There are some
Being carried along by the Holy Spirit sound suspiciously similar to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, don'tcha think? So Peter is saying that no Scripture was ever produced on the basis of human opinion, but rather was breathed out by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
But your argument is obviously self-contradictory. Who were the original interpreters of Peter's letter? Was it not the people of the church to whom he was writing? Do you think he expected them to be able to read and understand the meaning of his words? That seems obviously so. So something must be wrong with your exegesis here..
It's not my argument. Peter is the one who stated to them not to interpret Scripture outside his, Paul, and the rest of the Church leaders. Reread the Scripture verse.

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 1:20-21
...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
And notice how we ourselves are involved in the process of interpreting Scripture right now, without need of recourse to some other authority. Thus, I can point out that Peter is referring to the giving of prophecy (which is his shorthand for any inspired word), and not the reading and understanding of it. It's puzzling that you wouldn't have noticed this, since it's quite clear when you keep reading:

Now, if you believe you are able to evaluate the basic counter-argument I just gave, without having to consult the Magisterium, then it would seem that you believe you have the authority to interpret Scripture, since evaluating arguments about the text is a key element of interpretation..
Originally Posted by RLN
But let's say none of these verses are easier to interpret where do we turn for answers? As established earlier as Scripture tells us we turn to the Church. It is the Church that guides us in interpreting the Scriptures correctly. Lest we fall into error and preach false doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
But this is obviously self-refuting. If we can interpret Scripture enough to conclusively know that we need the Church to interpret it for us, then by definition we don't need the Church to interpret it for us! You are trying to eat your cake and still have it too. Either we have the authority to interpret Scripture as individuals, in which case we don't require a Magisterium, or we don't have that authority, in which case we can't even know that Scripture points us to the Magisterium. You simply can't have it both ways. So which horn of the dilemma will you choose?.
Did I ever say Scripture was not the inspired word of God? No where in my previous posts did I say that. That is the assumption I get from you when reading your comments above. What Scripture is Peter referring to? Itís the writings of Paul. What is Peter telling the early Christians? He is basically telling them that they should not be interpreting Scripture and that only he and Paul(I.E. the leaders of the early Church) have the authority to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn View Post
I think this really gets to the core incoherence in Catholic doctrine. And if Catholicism is self-refuting on this fundamental point, then side-issues like the canon and demoninations and so on are basically irrelevant, because a self-refuting theology is false by definition, and so whatever the answer is to these other issues, it obviously can't be found in Catholicism.
I think the real issue is you believe that the Catholic Church tells itís members not to read the Bible. Obviously thatís incorrect. Again let me repeat, I am not saying not to read the Bible. Iím not saying to not use your own intellect to understand the literature in the Bible. What I am saying is that a person should not make an exegesis on Scripture and say that this is the correct interpretation and therefore everyone must listen to that interpretation regardless if that person has no formal Scripture study and regardless of how that Scripture passage has been interpreted by Christians in the past centuries all because they believe that the "Holy Spirit will guide them to understanding the truth." No offense, but to say every Christian can just interpret Scripture with no formal training on the history and context of the text is not only crazy but irresponsible and an insult to the Holy Word of God and to the scores of Christians who died defending these teachings.

The core question is:

If the Holy Spirit guides all Christians to infallibly interpret Scripture then why are there many different and varying degrees in interpretation of Scripture? Which interpretation is correct? Why such disunity amongst Christians on biblical interpretation if the Holy Spirit is guiding them all?

Finally, letís appeal to Scripture: Where in Scripture does it show that individual Christians are to make their own interpretation of Scripture i.e. make dogma and doctrine? Note: again I'm not saying you shouldn't read the Bible nor use your God given intellect to understand it.

What is hard to believe is that people who claim to follow the Bible only cling so tightly on to a doctrine that is not only not in the Bible but has only been around for the last 500+years. Prior to that none of the early Christians followed these doctrines. It's not in the Bible and there is no evidence in other Christian texts to suggest it was a belief held prior to the Protestant Reformation.

So if Scripture cannot interpret itself on it's own and individual Christians cannot either as indicated by Scripture. Then who do Christians turn to? The Church. Why? Because the Church was established by Jesus Christ who left the Apostles in charge who inturn appointed successors and so forth. Reread my quote from a Protestant Christian historian. The Church was present before the Bible and gave us the Bible. I'm sorry brother, but Scripture and History is against you on this one. God bless.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 07:05 PM #289
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
@F1VENOM

You obviously do not have a clue about the health insurance industry and the coverages it provides prior to Obamacare and now under the Obamacare. All your doing is making assumptions. Abortions are not basic health care coverage and are not covered by health insurance unless in the extremely rare circumstances of a life or death procedure during pregnancy. How do I know this? Because I work in the insurance industry and all I needed to do is walk over to the health insurance department and verify if abortion is covered. It's not. In fact the life or death situation is so rare that the company I work with hasn't come across this situation according to the actuary I spoke with. What the HHS Mandate does is it makes coverage for abortion available regardless of the situation of the mother. It's no longer a life or death situation.

Okay I'm done discussing this issue with you. Your just going in circles pulling on whatever arguements you can find. Please discontinue this discussion or leave the Christ Krew thread. Thank you.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 07:13 PM #290
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
You're done because you've run out of red herrings and strawmen. If you work in the industry you wouldn't make such laughable statements as contraceptives and abortion being only for convenience. The fact is much of what you claim to oppose already goes on and you're just rallying now because you're being played. If you want to be ignorant that's fine, but don't go spreading bad information because someone at church or on tv tells you to.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 07:22 PM #291
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
You're done because you've run out of red herrings and strawmen. If you work in the industry you wouldn't make such laughable statements as contraceptives and abortion being only for convenience. The fact is much of what you claim to oppose already goes on and you're just rallying now because you're being played. If you want to be ignorant that's fine, but don't go spreading bad information because someone at church or on tv tells you to.
You've provided no sources, no links, nothing. Just false strawmen arguements. Look in the mirror before you point fingers my friend. I just asked an actuary for stats. They said there were none. Do you even know what an actuary is? Who are you to say I don't work in an industry? Like the rest of your points you just make assumptions.

Take your baseless assumptions outside. This discussion is over.
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004

Last edited by RLN : 12-30-2012 at 07:25 PM.
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 07:45 PM #292
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
What would you like me to validate? That birth control is used to regulate a whole host of feminine problems? That drugs used every day, paid for by you, are used as forms of contraception? That you've paid for abortions? Seriously, look outside of your comfort zone and you'll notice that the HHS is nothing new. Spain and Italy both allow abortions and contraception and are way more Catholic than the US, it's just another misdirection. Perhaps it's growing pains, but you should get used to it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catho...rch_by_country
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 08:26 PM #293
RLN
 
 
RLN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Guam
RLN donated to help Peyton Trent
RLN owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
RLN has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
RLN has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
I can easily cite resources that show that birth control is not the only option and that it infact is the only option most physicians recommend because of kick-backs by pharmaceutical companies. In many instances prescribed birth control is only treating the symptoms and not the actual medical condition. I do not discount the use of birth control for some medical conditions in women. But a majority of the cases for birth control for medical conditions can be treated by other and more safer alternative methods.


Here is the point I keep making but you have consistently refuse to acknowledge: "This isn’t about denying anyone access to contraception. It’s not about Americans losing prior health coverage.

It’s about government denying religious liberty. It’s about Americans losing the freedom to establish or choose health insurance plans without government coercion." http://www.heritage.org/research/com...on-hhs-mandate
__________________
Christ Krew#291Feedback: http://www.pbnation.com/feedback.php?u=383004
RLN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 09:17 PM #294
Bnonn
Little Fox
 
Bnonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Zealand
Hey RLN, I don't think we're making much headway because you seem to be misconstruing most of what I say.

For example, I've never suggested or implied we don't need Bible scholars. What I suggested was that since we have Bible scholars, not every Christian needs to be one -- because rather than becoming a Bible scholar, we can go about the process of interpretation by evaluating the arguments of existing Bible scholars.

I'm also not sure why you think that merely having the authority to interpret Scripture must entail the ability to interpret it infallibly. That's your gloss -- not mine. If you think authority must entail infallibility, you need to give an argument for that.

Another thing I've never said is that Catholicism tells its adherents not to read the Bible. Again, that's your gloss.

That said, you've really missed my main point, which is that Catholicism is self-refuting. You've somehow taken my point about this to entail that Scripture is not inspired. I'm at a loss as to how you got from here to there, but in any case, let me reiterate by asking you a simple question:

By what authority do you know that the Catholic Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture?
Bnonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump