So you’re calling faith only people idiots? No, I’m not, but this is a clear violation of forum rules. You can feel free to apologize if you feel so moved.
Not to get in to a conversation again but this is worth replying.
I said I am sorry if you are a faith only person. Not about what I said. I firmly believe that the people who go faith alone have no logical basis or just do not understand the inherent contradictions involved in such a position. So I only know one word to describe such people and I used it.
You describe a mentally insane person a certain way and you attribute certain actions to them. I simply stated such a scenario. Now if the Hat fits you too, that is not my problem because it was never targeted at you. I can only be sorry that it fits you in the first place.
Everybody has an epistemological problem. This is a problem common to man, and all religions. At some point, all arguments are based on unproven assumptions or circular reasoning. I’m more than willing to admit that. Roman Catholics believe the RCC to be the one true church. Why do they believe that? Because the Roman Catholic church says it.
No. It’s because that is the only possibility.
If Christ did indeed exist and his apostles formed a church. That church cannot be lead astray. Simple as that. If it was lead astray, then God has let down his people. Christ can’t even keep his teachings preserved.
I’ve already explained to you that I accept the canon for the same reason the early church did. They looked at the evidence, which included personal testimony, physical evidence, written records, and oral tradition. They made inferences based on this evidence and came to the most reasonable conclusion that they could. You act like it was magic or something.
No, not magic, I am simply pointing out that they accepted those sources as authority. You are the person that wants to pick and choose. You want to take ONLY the part about the canon of Scripture from
"personal testimony, physical evidence, written records, and oral tradition" and discard the rest. That obviously is a double standard.
Finally, the bible can be interpreted in a million ways while having your interpretation logically consistent with themselves BUT contradicting others. You do not seem to have understood that yet.
The church simply takes the interpretations consistent with Tradition. Because that would say how the Apostles who preached meant scripture to be understood. What you’ve done here is throw away Tradition and then start interpreting yourself. So yes, you most likely have a 100% logically consistent interpretation of the Bible. I commend your hard work for it.
But salvation-wise, that is not correct. The Roman Catholic Church teaching, which is from Tradition, contradicts what you are saying. So you want to hold a view that is contrary to what the apostles intended when they wrote Scripture.
That is your problem.
Now I would like to continue this discussion but I do have a very low tolerance when it comes to not so honest discussions. In your case, you are a big fan of using non-sequitor. If you don’t understand what is being said, then obviously everything feels non-sequitor. Even what I said in the previous line probably sounds non-sequitor to you. That is exactly your problem.
God Bless
