curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Always take a partisan claim with a grain of salt.

Several claims about Protestants in that post are false or at least exaggerated.

That happens, of course, when you see the 'other side' as an opponent and not a brother.

---

And this is the point of discussion. Havent had many Protestants argue this points are incorrect but there are 45,000 sects so it's possible for sure. It's the only reason I'm here. To learn why from people that think different and challenge my beliefs.

---

Or, you could speak for Roman Catholics and show restraint about your assumptions on Protestants.

---

This I did comparing and contrasting the points laid out here. And then we can discuss further. That's what makes it a message board

You're free to share you opinion in agreement or disagreement of course

Like when you say Roman Catholic vs Catholic what distinction are you making if any?

---

......However, by my late 30s I came to see that something was missing. Heard too many arguments that sounded much like those of our resident Pharisee, BTD.
Came to understand that one could only get so far trying to reason/argue Holy Scripture and thought there had to be a better way (and better music - though that's a story for another day). Was 42 when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

---

So... you heard the actual truth of the Gospel, and rejected it for something your itchy ears wanted to hear.

---

You are the one who hears what he wants to hear. Same old same old out of you. No surprise. There is nothing in my personal beliefs that you can disprove.

---

Scripture disproves your personal beliefs. Logic and sound reasoning disprove your beliefs. Like your belief that it's being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should place our salvation in the hands of Jesus alone.

---

You play semantic games and create straw men repeatedly then claim victory. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Same as ever. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom.

---

It's a "semantic game" and a "straw man" to quote your exact words?

---

Of course, pinhead. You make up your own meaning as you go along while denying there are alternatives. Typical.

---

There are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus?

---

Depends entirely upon what one means by that phrase, of course. So yes, obviously.

Resorting to your typical approach, Pharisee.

---

Explain. How can the meaning of that phrase allow for alternatives other than Jesus?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

curtpenn said:

---

So you must drop to your knees and give thanks every night that we have this infallible gift courtesy of the Church of Rome? Lol.

---

The Church of Rome?? The Church of Rome only confirmed what had already been accepted by the body of Christ as being authoritative centuries prior. The Gospels were already being circulated in the early church centuries before. The Old Testament is the Jewish Tanakh. Paul's letters were already written and viewed as Scripture long before the Church of Rome. Paul called Luke's gospel "scripture" and Peter called Paul's writings scripture. In fact, the Church of Rome erred by including the apocrypha into canon. Protestants DON'T use the Bible of the Church of Rome, because it is fallible! So there goes your argument.

This is yet another one of your fallacious ideas that you built your beliefs on, beliefs you defend with passion (i.e. nastiness).

And an additional point - the Church of Rome back in the 4th century would not even recognize the current Roman Catholic Church today as even being Christianity. This is the result of abandoning sola scriptura and allowing the traditions of fallible man to creep into the church and distort the truth, not the least of which is the true Gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Always take a partisan claim with a grain of salt.

Several claims about Protestants in that post are false or at least exaggerated.

That happens, of course, when you see the 'other side' as an opponent and not a brother.

---

And this is the point of discussion. Havent had many Protestants argue this points are incorrect but there are 45,000 sects so it's possible for sure. It's the only reason I'm here. To learn why from people that think different and challenge my beliefs.

---

Or, you could speak for Roman Catholics and show restraint about your assumptions on Protestants.

---

This I did comparing and contrasting the points laid out here. And then we can discuss further. That's what makes it a message board

You're free to share you opinion in agreement or disagreement of course

Like when you say Roman Catholic vs Catholic what distinction are you making if any?

---

......However, by my late 30s I came to see that something was missing. Heard too many arguments that sounded much like those of our resident Pharisee, BTD.
Came to understand that one could only get so far trying to reason/argue Holy Scripture and thought there had to be a better way (and better music - though that's a story for another day). Was 42 when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

---

So... you heard the actual truth of the Gospel, and rejected it for something your itchy ears wanted to hear.

---

You are the one who hears what he wants to hear. Same old same old out of you. No surprise. There is nothing in my personal beliefs that you can disprove.

---

Scripture disproves your personal beliefs. Logic and sound reasoning disprove your beliefs. Like your belief that it's being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should place our salvation in the hands of Jesus alone.

---

You play semantic games and create straw men repeatedly then claim victory. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Same as ever. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom.

---

It's a "semantic game" and a "straw man" to quote your exact words?

---

Of course, pinhead. You make up your own meaning as you go along while denying there are alternatives. Typical.

---

There are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus?

---

Depends entirely upon what one means by that phrase, of course. So yes, obviously.

Resorting to your typical approach, Pharisee.

---

Explain. How can the meaning of that phrase allow for alternatives other than Jesus?

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Always take a partisan claim with a grain of salt.

Several claims about Protestants in that post are false or at least exaggerated.

That happens, of course, when you see the 'other side' as an opponent and not a brother.

---

And this is the point of discussion. Havent had many Protestants argue this points are incorrect but there are 45,000 sects so it's possible for sure. It's the only reason I'm here. To learn why from people that think different and challenge my beliefs.

---

Or, you could speak for Roman Catholics and show restraint about your assumptions on Protestants.

---

This I did comparing and contrasting the points laid out here. And then we can discuss further. That's what makes it a message board

You're free to share you opinion in agreement or disagreement of course

Like when you say Roman Catholic vs Catholic what distinction are you making if any?

---

......However, by my late 30s I came to see that something was missing. Heard too many arguments that sounded much like those of our resident Pharisee, BTD.
Came to understand that one could only get so far trying to reason/argue Holy Scripture and thought there had to be a better way (and better music - though that's a story for another day). Was 42 when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

---

So... you heard the actual truth of the Gospel, and rejected it for something your itchy ears wanted to hear.

---

You are the one who hears what he wants to hear. Same old same old out of you. No surprise. There is nothing in my personal beliefs that you can disprove.

---

Scripture disproves your personal beliefs. Logic and sound reasoning disprove your beliefs. Like your belief that it's being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should place our salvation in the hands of Jesus alone.

---

You play semantic games and create straw men repeatedly then claim victory. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Same as ever. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom.

---

It's a "semantic game" and a "straw man" to quote your exact words?

---

Of course, pinhead. You make up your own meaning as you go along while denying there are alternatives. Typical.

---

There are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus?

---

Depends entirely upon what one means by that phrase, of course. So yes, obviously.

Resorting to your typical approach, Pharisee.

---

Explain. How can the meaning of that phrase allow for alternatives other than Jesus?

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Always take a partisan claim with a grain of salt.

Several claims about Protestants in that post are false or at least exaggerated.

That happens, of course, when you see the 'other side' as an opponent and not a brother.

---

And this is the point of discussion. Havent had many Protestants argue this points are incorrect but there are 45,000 sects so it's possible for sure. It's the only reason I'm here. To learn why from people that think different and challenge my beliefs.

---

Or, you could speak for Roman Catholics and show restraint about your assumptions on Protestants.

---

This I did comparing and contrasting the points laid out here. And then we can discuss further. That's what makes it a message board

You're free to share you opinion in agreement or disagreement of course

Like when you say Roman Catholic vs Catholic what distinction are you making if any?

---

......However, by my late 30s I came to see that something was missing. Heard too many arguments that sounded much like those of our resident Pharisee, BTD.
Came to understand that one could only get so far trying to reason/argue Holy Scripture and thought there had to be a better way (and better music - though that's a story for another day). Was 42 when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

---

So... you heard the actual truth of the Gospel, and rejected it for something your itchy ears wanted to hear.

---

You are the one who hears what he wants to hear. Same old same old out of you. No surprise. There is nothing in my personal beliefs that you can disprove.

---

Scripture disproves your personal beliefs. Logic and sound reasoning disprove your beliefs. Like your belief that it's being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should place our salvation in the hands of Jesus alone.

---

You play semantic games and create straw men repeatedly then claim victory. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Same as ever. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom.

---

It's a "semantic game" and a "straw man" to quote your exact words?

---

Of course, pinhead. You make up your own meaning as you go along while denying there are alternatives. Typical.

---

There are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus?

---

Depends entirely upon what one means by that phrase, of course. So yes, obviously.

Resorting to your typical approach, Pharisee.

---

Explain. How can the meaning of that phrase allow for alternatives other than Jesus?

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Always take a partisan claim with a grain of salt.

Several claims about Protestants in that post are false or at least exaggerated.

That happens, of course, when you see the 'other side' as an opponent and not a brother.

---

And this is the point of discussion. Havent had many Protestants argue this points are incorrect but there are 45,000 sects so it's possible for sure. It's the only reason I'm here. To learn why from people that think different and challenge my beliefs.

---

Or, you could speak for Roman Catholics and show restraint about your assumptions on Protestants.

---

This I did comparing and contrasting the points laid out here. And then we can discuss further. That's what makes it a message board

You're free to share you opinion in agreement or disagreement of course

Like when you say Roman Catholic vs Catholic what distinction are you making if any?

---

......However, by my late 30s I came to see that something was missing. Heard too many arguments that sounded much like those of our resident Pharisee, BTD.
Came to understand that one could only get so far trying to reason/argue Holy Scripture and thought there had to be a better way (and better music - though that's a story for another day). Was 42 when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

---

So... you heard the actual truth of the Gospel, and rejected it for something your itchy ears wanted to hear.

---

You are the one who hears what he wants to hear. Same old same old out of you. No surprise. There is nothing in my personal beliefs that you can disprove.

---

Scripture disproves your personal beliefs. Logic and sound reasoning disprove your beliefs. Like your belief that it's being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should place our salvation in the hands of Jesus alone.

---

You play semantic games and create straw men repeatedly then claim victory. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Same as ever. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom.

---

It's a "semantic game" and a "straw man" to quote your exact words?

---

Of course, pinhead. You make up your own meaning as you go along while denying there are alternatives. Typical.

---

There are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus?

---

Depends entirely upon what one means by that phrase, of course. So yes, obviously.

Resorting to your typical approach, Pharisee.

---

Explain. How can the meaning of that phrase allow for alternatives other than Jesus?

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Always take a partisan claim with a grain of salt.

Several claims about Protestants in that post are false or at least exaggerated.

That happens, of course, when you see the 'other side' as an opponent and not a brother.

---

And this is the point of discussion. Havent had many Protestants argue this points are incorrect but there are 45,000 sects so it's possible for sure. It's the only reason I'm here. To learn why from people that think different and challenge my beliefs.

---

Or, you could speak for Roman Catholics and show restraint about your assumptions on Protestants.

---

This I did comparing and contrasting the points laid out here. And then we can discuss further. That's what makes it a message board

You're free to share you opinion in agreement or disagreement of course

Like when you say Roman Catholic vs Catholic what distinction are you making if any?

---

......However, by my late 30s I came to see that something was missing. Heard too many arguments that sounded much like those of our resident Pharisee, BTD.
Came to understand that one could only get so far trying to reason/argue Holy Scripture and thought there had to be a better way (and better music - though that's a story for another day). Was 42 when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

---

So... you heard the actual truth of the Gospel, and rejected it for something your itchy ears wanted to hear.

---

You are the one who hears what he wants to hear. Same old same old out of you. No surprise. There is nothing in my personal beliefs that you can disprove.

---

Scripture disproves your personal beliefs. Logic and sound reasoning disprove your beliefs. Like your belief that it's being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should place our salvation in the hands of Jesus alone.

---

You play semantic games and create straw men repeatedly then claim victory. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Same as ever. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom.

---

It's a "semantic game" and a "straw man" to quote your exact words?

---

Of course, pinhead. You make up your own meaning as you go along while denying there are alternatives. Typical.

---

There are "alternatives" to who's hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus?

---

Depends entirely upon what one means by that phrase, of course. So yes, obviously.

Resorting to your typical approach, Pharisee.

---

Explain. How can the meaning of that phrase allow for alternatives other than Jesus?

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

As ever, you think you've "demonstrated" something when you've only asserted it. Your demonstration was contra a straw man. Also typical of you.

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

As ever, you think you've "demonstrated" something when you've only asserted it. Your demonstration was contra a straw man. Also typical of you.

---

So, no answer, just insults, as I thought.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

No, not happy. Because this is still blatant heresy and idolatry. You don't go to Mary for salvation, you go directly to Jesus. If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus. This is highly unbiblical and highly heretical and idolatrous. And it isn't "pharisaical" to identify it as such. Your argument has failed.

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Especially since the One we seek, is always looking for us to seek Him in higher places than arguments and bickering. Thanks BUDOS.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Especially since the One we seek, is always looking for us to seek Him in higher places than arguments and bickering. Thanks BUDOS.

---

But wasn't there "bickering" between you and FreedomBear, for like three pages?

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Sir, the weeds are where the Devil usually hides, and chokes out the grain. It is good to root him out.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Especially since the One we seek, is always looking for us to seek Him in higher places than arguments and bickering. Thanks BUDOS.

---

But wasn't there "bickering" between you and FreedomBear, for like three pages?

---

Not at all like your battles with so many here, BTD. We sought clarification of positions, and let go when we reached the end of fruitful exchange.

I don't recall any insults used, for one thing.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

No, not happy. Because this is still blatant heresy and idolatry. You don't go to Mary for salvation, you go directly to Jesus. If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus. This is highly unbiblical and highly heretical and idolatrous. And it isn't "pharisaical" to identify it as such. Your argument has failed.

---

I don't go to the Blessed Virgin Mary for salvation. How dense are you? You asked for an alternative explanation and I answered your request.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Sir, the weeds are where the Devil usually hides, and chokes out the grain. It is good to root him out.

---

Sounds like something Torquemada would've said. Ironic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Especially since the One we seek, is always looking for us to seek Him in higher places than arguments and bickering. Thanks BUDOS.

---

But wasn't there "bickering" between you and FreedomBear, for like three pages?

---

You truly are the tool of Satan. I rebuke you.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Especially since the One we seek, is always looking for us to seek Him in higher places than arguments and bickering. Thanks BUDOS.

---

But wasn't there "bickering" between you and FreedomBear, for like three pages?

---

You truly are the tool of Satan. I rebuke you.

---

Right. Notice you said "I" rebuke you. Fitting, you are your own authority.

In contrast, I say that YOU are a tool of Satan and THE LORD rebuke you.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

No, not happy. Because this is still blatant heresy and idolatry. You don't go to Mary for salvation, you go directly to Jesus. If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus. This is highly unbiblical and highly heretical and idolatrous. And it isn't "pharisaical" to identify it as such. Your argument has failed.

---

I don't go to the Blessed Virgin Mary for salvation. How dense are you? You asked for an alternative explanation and I answered your request.

---

I didn't say YOU go to Mary for salvation. How dense are YOU?

And your answer wasn't an alternative explanation at all. It was the same heresy and idolatry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

---

It's obviously false that "anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern it's true", or else many who claim they have the Holy Spirit are in error. You come to mind, for instance. By your logic, anyone can claim they have the "truth" as long as they believe they have the Holy Spirit. Or do you waffle and then judge by your self righteous standards who truly has the Holy Spirit? Does one who constantly attacks the majority of all Christians who have ever lived truly think they are Spirit filled? Seems unlikely in the extreme. Keep up the good work making your father (of lies) happy.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear,
Words have their place, and I appreciate the time you spent with your explanation. Conceptually I think we're pretty much in agreement. I wonder why some others seem to enjoy getting lost in the weeds rather than looking up.

---

Sir, the weeds are where the Devil usually hides, and chokes out the grain. It is good to root him out.

---

Sounds like something Torquemada would've said. Ironic.

---

It's called having careful, arduous discernment. I'm not surprised you have a distaste for it.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

You may call your beliefs Sola Scriptura but it's still turtles all the way down and always will be. There's your basic problem that you cannot overcome.

---

Explain. Give an example of what you mean.

It sounds like you deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I highly disagree.

And sola scriptura does not mean there can't be differences in interpretation. It merely means that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, because it is the ONLY thing we have in our possession that is God-breathed (His words).

---

One of your insurmountable problems is your lack of authority re interpretation. Try as you might you cannot escape. Sola scriptura is just another turtle.

---

Wow, you really explained that and gave examples.

We've heard this kind of argument before. It's what liberal Christians use to justify homosexuality and same sex marriage, and all kinds of other sins. We have a so-called minister here who uses it to deny the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus. So you're not on solid ground here.

It's also the argument that Roman Catholicism uses to introduce heresies and idolatry that were derived from fallible tradition of man. "Only we the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to interpret scripture - it says so in Scripture, and you have to believe it because only we can tell you what Scripture means". It is a circular fallacy that has led to very tragic results.

---

You are the master of the circular infinite regression yet you criticize the Magisterium for making the same attempt. Too funny.

Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't tell us anything about the argument. You of all people here should know better. In case you missed it, you are not the authority on Scripture or it's interpretation either.

For the record I don't deny Our Lord's physical resurrection and assert the ontological impossibility of homosex "marriage" as well as that of women's ordination.

---

What is my circular infinite regression that you speak of? I just demonstrated what Roman Catholicism's was by explaining it with reason and logic. It seems like you are just making arguments by assertion, which is what you're accusing me of. Another fail.

Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding you not denying those things, phew, I'm relieved. Because if you're capable of believing that we can place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, you're capable of believing pretty much any heresy.

---

What is the objective basis for your so called "reason and logic"? There's your circularity.

---

By your reasoning, everyone is being circular, even you. By your reasoning, no one can know and reason anything objectively. This is epistemological self-destruction, a pointless argument.

---

Yes, even my reasoning is circular. That's the point. It's all circular and can be no other. It's all about faith and faith is inherently extra-rationality. Your never ending blather is pointless and destructive to the body of Christ.

---

But epistemologically, you destroyed your own point. Because your reasoning that it's about faith, is also circular, therefore it's invalid. See?

And even faith is BASED on objective reasoning and truth. If you deny this, then there is no such thing as absolute truth, and anyone's faith is valid. That is meaninglessness.

If there's endless blather, it's coming from you, friend.

---

First off, we aren't friends so you can forgo the hypocrisy. Faith can be based on reason, but it is obviously not limited to that. I embrace the classical Anglican triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. I don't embrace the Gospel of St BTD. I also acknowledge and embrace that nothing I believe can be proven in any real sense of that word. That's what makes it faith. You contribute nothing to people of Christian faith with your never ending spewing here.

---

If faith is not based only objective reason and truth, then what else can it be based on and not avoid error? Feelings? Are we back to your sola mi feelings again?

Of course you don't embrace the "Gospel of BTD" - I'm only professing the gospel of the Bible, and if you believe that saying we can place our salvation in the hands of Mary is okay, then it's no surprise you have a distaste for biblical truth.

What you are completely missing is that the debates and discussion I'm having with others here has the STARTING point that Scripture is the word of God. We have an agreed upon objective starting point, we're not all floating in a sea of relativity and circular reasoning. From here, YES, things CAN be proven to be Scriptural or unscriptural using sound reason and logic, like the Bereans did. Not all things in Scripture can. but the things I've been talking about, yes, it can. Scripture isn't this mystic, arcane puzzle understood only by a select few - anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern its truth, after studying it and studying commentaries, writings, and debates. Much of scripture is perspicuous, but it does take some work. The mistake that you and Roman Catholics make is that you don't believe this. You believe, rather, that someone else has to tell you what it means. The Bible says that we believers are a "priesthood of believers" - so as priests, we have authority through the Holy Spirit to discern what Scripture is telling us.

Again, you can repeat ad nauseam that I'm not contributing anything to Christianity here. It makes me glad to hear it. Because judging by your heretical beliefs and general nastiness, clearly the spirit behind you is questionable and your judgement as to what benefits Christianity or not is highly, highly suspect. I must be on the right track.

---

It's obviously false that "anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern it's true", or else many who claim they have the Holy Spirit are in error. You come to mind, for instance. By your logic, anyone can claim they have the "truth" as long as they believe they have the Holy Spirit. Or do you waffle and then judge by your self righteous standards who truly has the Holy Spirit? Does one who constantly attacks the majority of all Christians who have ever lived truly think they are Spirit filled? Seems unlikely in the extreme. Keep up the good work making your father (of lies) happy.

---

You are as snarky as I am and make up crap such as "sola mi feelings", for example. Don't pretend you are any better, asshat.

I don't believe I need anyone to tell me what Holy Scriptures means, least of all tools such as you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

No, not happy. Because this is still blatant heresy and idolatry. You don't go to Mary for salvation, you go directly to Jesus. If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus. This is highly unbiblical and highly heretical and idolatrous. And it isn't "pharisaical" to identify it as such. Your argument has failed.

---

I don't go to the Blessed Virgin Mary for salvation. How dense are you? You asked for an alternative explanation and I answered your request.

---

I didn't say YOU go to Mary for salvation. How dense are YOU?

And your answer wasn't an alternative explanation at all. It was the same heresy and idolatry.

---

Stupidity confirmed. Along with a spirit of evil.