Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
Whatever you want to call it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Doc Holliday said:Mothra said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
Reformed theology teaches perseverance of the saints, meaning salvation cannot be lost.
Arminians argue that a true believer can fall away and be lost.
Free Grace theology claims that a single act of belief guarantees salvation regardless of how one lives afterward.
Wesleyans maintain that ongoing holiness is required in order to remain saved.
These positions cannot all be true at the same time because they contradict one another, yet each appeals to Scripture alone as its authority and even claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them. This is a FATAL problem. People new to the faith are completely lost trying to figure out which theology is correct, and these aren't minor disagreements. They are massive contradictions that directly shape how someone lives, how they understand salvation, and how they see God Himself.
If Scripture alone were meant to function as a self-interpreting rule of faith, it would not leave sincere believers choosing between contradictory gospels with no authoritative way to resolve them.
What's ironic about your defense of tradition is tradition led to current Catholic doctrine, which based on your comments, you completely disagree with.
Hate to break it to you, but you have more in common with a reformed Christian than a Catholic.
Tradition isn't tradition generating authority. It's the faithful transmission of what was received: the apostolic faith, worship, and sacramental life.
When later formulations arise, they're judged against what came before, not legitimated simply because they're later. The west tried to claim papacy and Orthodoxy found that it didn't hold up to Apostolic Christianity. The west didn't like that and became schismatic in 1054, creating their own doctrines over the years and eventually abuses (indulgences) that created Protestants.
Orthodoxy never changed.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
No one is confusing sola scriptura with "no differences in interpretation." That's a strawman. Everyone agrees interpretation is fallible. The issue is what adjudicates interpretation when disagreement arises?
You're left with an infallible text that can only ever be accessed through fallible, competing judgments…with no infallible mechanism to say which interpretation faithfully reflects apostolic teaching. That's FATAL.
Rome and Orthodoxy don't share the same interpretive authority. They diverge precisely at the level of authority:
papal supremacy, the filioque, magisterial scope, etc. Their disagreements are intelligible because they disagree about who has the right to define doctrine.
Under sola scriptura, everyone agrees on the authority (Scripture) but has no shared authority to resolve interpretation. That's why your current denomination has already split and will continue to splinter. It's not over little things either, you don't have small differences, they're massive.
You don't affirm hardly anything the original reformers believed. You'd have to call them pagans by what you've already accused us of.
Where do you think this ends man? All of the high church original Protestant churches affirm lgbt, abortion and woke nonsense. The charismatics are flopping around on the ground and "speaking in tongues". Baptists are becoming more and more secular. I can't even imagine what it will be like in 50 years or 200 years.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.
I'm critiquing it as a claim about authority and functionality.
I'm accurately pointing out that your system can't operate without smuggling in another authority.
Yes, two churches can claim to derive doctrine only from Scripture and still disagree. That alone doesn't "falsify" sola scriptura as a slogan. That's not my argument.
The problem is this: when those interpretations conflict, sola scriptura provides no authoritative mechanism to determine which doctrine is correct.
That is not "confusing Scripture with interpretation."
I'm recognizing that whatever settles doctrine is the authority.
You asked "Has sola scriptura been violated or falsified if two churches disagree?" No, it has been shown to be insufficient.
You keep insisting Scripture and interpretation are "separate concepts." I agree. That's exactly why sola scriptura fails, because the authority that actually determines doctrine is not Scripture, but interpretation.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
My view isn't "Tradition floating on its own" as an infallible source. I'm appealing to apostolic authority continuing in the Church. That authority is not an abstract tradition or a set of texts: it's a living, identifiable body with the power to define, preserve, and adjudicate doctrine.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.
I'm critiquing it as a claim about authority and functionality.
I'm accurately pointing out that your system can't operate without smuggling in another authority.
Yes, two churches can claim to derive doctrine only from Scripture and still disagree. That alone doesn't "falsify" sola scriptura as a slogan. That's not my argument.
The problem is this: when those interpretations conflict, sola scriptura provides no authoritative mechanism to determine which doctrine is correct.
That is not "confusing Scripture with interpretation."
I'm recognizing that whatever settles doctrine is the authority.
You asked "Has sola scriptura been violated or falsified if two churches disagree?" No, it has been shown to be insufficient.
You keep insisting Scripture and interpretation are "separate concepts." I agree. That's exactly why sola scriptura fails, because the authority that actually determines doctrine is not Scripture, but interpretation.
So how does your view of Tradition being an infallible source of authority escape this same "critique" of yours for sola scriptura?
And do you realize, and will admit, that your critique is not falsifying sola scriptura?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I don't submit to RC authority.Oldbear83 said:
The glaring error in your argument, Doc, is that you presume the RC is the appropriate authority to decide what Scripture means, especially when the RC disagrees with a plain reading of Scripture.
Doc Holliday said:Oldbear83 said:
The glaring error in your argument, Doc, is that you presume the RC is the appropriate authority to decide what Scripture means, especially when the RC disagrees with a plain reading of Scripture.
I don't submit to RC authority.
The plain reading of scripture supports apostolic succession.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.
I'm critiquing it as a claim about authority and functionality.
I'm accurately pointing out that your system can't operate without smuggling in another authority.
Yes, two churches can claim to derive doctrine only from Scripture and still disagree. That alone doesn't "falsify" sola scriptura as a slogan. That's not my argument.
The problem is this: when those interpretations conflict, sola scriptura provides no authoritative mechanism to determine which doctrine is correct.
That is not "confusing Scripture with interpretation."
I'm recognizing that whatever settles doctrine is the authority.
You asked "Has sola scriptura been violated or falsified if two churches disagree?" No, it has been shown to be insufficient.
You keep insisting Scripture and interpretation are "separate concepts." I agree. That's exactly why sola scriptura fails, because the authority that actually determines doctrine is not Scripture, but interpretation.
So how does your view of Tradition being an infallible source of authority escape this same "critique" of yours for sola scriptura?
And do you realize, and will admit, that your critique is not falsifying sola scriptura?
My view isn't "Tradition floating on its own" as an infallible source. I'm appealing to apostolic authority continuing in the Church. That authority is not an abstract tradition or a set of texts: it's a living, identifiable body with the power to define, preserve, and adjudicate doctrine.
I've argued this entire time that sola scriptura can't actually function as a rule of faith. Can you argue otherwise and provide an example?
Doc Holliday said:Oldbear83 said:
The glaring error in your argument, Doc, is that you presume the RC is the appropriate authority to decide what Scripture means, especially when the RC disagrees with a plain reading of Scripture.
I don't submit to RC authority.
The plain reading of scripture supports apostolic succession.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
The Ten Commandments didn't function as a rule of faith because they were a text, they functioned because they were interpreted and enforced by a living, God-appointed authority…exactly what sola scriptura denies.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.
I'm critiquing it as a claim about authority and functionality.
I'm accurately pointing out that your system can't operate without smuggling in another authority.
Yes, two churches can claim to derive doctrine only from Scripture and still disagree. That alone doesn't "falsify" sola scriptura as a slogan. That's not my argument.
The problem is this: when those interpretations conflict, sola scriptura provides no authoritative mechanism to determine which doctrine is correct.
That is not "confusing Scripture with interpretation."
I'm recognizing that whatever settles doctrine is the authority.
You asked "Has sola scriptura been violated or falsified if two churches disagree?" No, it has been shown to be insufficient.
You keep insisting Scripture and interpretation are "separate concepts." I agree. That's exactly why sola scriptura fails, because the authority that actually determines doctrine is not Scripture, but interpretation.
So how does your view of Tradition being an infallible source of authority escape this same "critique" of yours for sola scriptura?
And do you realize, and will admit, that your critique is not falsifying sola scriptura?
My view isn't "Tradition floating on its own" as an infallible source. I'm appealing to apostolic authority continuing in the Church. That authority is not an abstract tradition or a set of texts: it's a living, identifiable body with the power to define, preserve, and adjudicate doctrine.
I've argued this entire time that sola scriptura can't actually function as a rule of faith. Can you argue otherwise and provide an example?
Scripture is the only way to appeal to apostolic authority, being that Scripture is the ony thing we have that we know came from the apostles. This is established fact, highlighted by the fact that neither you nor anyone else has been able to prove otherwise.
I am at a loss to explain why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Scripture functions as the sole infallible rule of faith when all your beliefs either come from Scripture, or when Scripture is the final standard by which all your beliefs are weighed against. You aren't arguing that sola scriptura can't function as a rule of faith - what you're actually doing, is arguing that sola scriptura is dependent on interpretation. But as long as the interpretation is of Scripture and it's the basis of your rule of faith, then sola scriptura is STILL functioning as the sole infallible rule of faith. It doesn't matter what the interpretation is. One's interpretation of Scripture is not an authority in of itself, and neither is it infallible. So even if you consider it an "authority", it still does not operate as an infallible rule of faith, like Scripture. Therefore, sola scriptura still remains.
And I have to point out, again, that if you believe sola scriptura can't function as a rule of faith, then neither can Tradition for the exact same reasons you're arguing for sola scriptura. Tradition can't function as a rule of faith, because Tradition requires interpretation, right? And don't you need an infallible interpretation... for the interpretation? And so on, and so on? If you're looking for reductio ad absurdum, there it is. Ultimately, this reduces down to everyone having to interpret for themselves, and so guess what - we're all "our own popes" now!
What you're arguing is epistemology. But epistemology does not invalidate sola scriptura, not at all. Here's an example of what you're doing: answer this - were the Ten Commandments an infallible rule of faith for Israel, and could it function as such? If you say yes, then you're contradicting what you're arguing. If you're consistent with what you're arguing, you'll say "no", and there is your problem. You're saying that the Ten Commandments can't function as a rule of faith for the Israelis. Can you not see that this isn't rational?
I wholly agree that it doesn't say Rome is in charge. I'm not Roman Catholic brother…Oldbear83 said:Doc Holliday said:Oldbear83 said:
The glaring error in your argument, Doc, is that you presume the RC is the appropriate authority to decide what Scripture means, especially when the RC disagrees with a plain reading of Scripture.
I don't submit to RC authority.
The plain reading of scripture supports apostolic succession.
It does not say Rome is in charge.
You pretend that the Protestant movement is by default heresy.
The RC's have had some evil popes. That does not make the RC's all evil, of course, but the fact there were and are some Protestant ministers who undeniably showed the Holy Spirit working through them, means that you really ought to be able to accept that there are both Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist and Episcopalian believers who do the Lord's work, and so the 'apostolic succession very clearly shows up where the Lord wants it, and not where any one Pope or Minister or Archbishop says.
Doc Holliday said:Oldbear83 said:Doc Holliday said:Oldbear83 said:
The glaring error in your argument, Doc, is that you presume the RC is the appropriate authority to decide what Scripture means, especially when the RC disagrees with a plain reading of Scripture.
I don't submit to RC authority.
The plain reading of scripture supports apostolic succession.
It does not say Rome is in charge.
You pretend that the Protestant movement is by default heresy.
The RC's have had some evil popes. That does not make the RC's all evil, of course, but the fact there were and are some Protestant ministers who undeniably showed the Holy Spirit working through them, means that you really ought to be able to accept that there are both Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist and Episcopalian believers who do the Lord's work, and so the 'apostolic succession very clearly shows up where the Lord wants it, and not where any one Pope or Minister or Archbishop says.
I wholly agree that it doesn't say Rome is in charge. I'm not Roman Catholic brother…
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.
I'm critiquing it as a claim about authority and functionality.
I'm accurately pointing out that your system can't operate without smuggling in another authority.
Yes, two churches can claim to derive doctrine only from Scripture and still disagree. That alone doesn't "falsify" sola scriptura as a slogan. That's not my argument.
The problem is this: when those interpretations conflict, sola scriptura provides no authoritative mechanism to determine which doctrine is correct.
That is not "confusing Scripture with interpretation."
I'm recognizing that whatever settles doctrine is the authority.
You asked "Has sola scriptura been violated or falsified if two churches disagree?" No, it has been shown to be insufficient.
You keep insisting Scripture and interpretation are "separate concepts." I agree. That's exactly why sola scriptura fails, because the authority that actually determines doctrine is not Scripture, but interpretation.
So how does your view of Tradition being an infallible source of authority escape this same "critique" of yours for sola scriptura?
And do you realize, and will admit, that your critique is not falsifying sola scriptura?
My view isn't "Tradition floating on its own" as an infallible source. I'm appealing to apostolic authority continuing in the Church. That authority is not an abstract tradition or a set of texts: it's a living, identifiable body with the power to define, preserve, and adjudicate doctrine.
I've argued this entire time that sola scriptura can't actually function as a rule of faith. Can you argue otherwise and provide an example?
Scripture is the only way to appeal to apostolic authority, being that Scripture is the ony thing we have that we know came from the apostles. This is established fact, highlighted by the fact that neither you nor anyone else has been able to prove otherwise.
I am at a loss to explain why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Scripture functions as the sole infallible rule of faith when all your beliefs either come from Scripture, or when Scripture is the final standard by which all your beliefs are weighed against. You aren't arguing that sola scriptura can't function as a rule of faith - what you're actually doing, is arguing that sola scriptura is dependent on interpretation. But as long as the interpretation is of Scripture and it's the basis of your rule of faith, then sola scriptura is STILL functioning as the sole infallible rule of faith. It doesn't matter what the interpretation is. One's interpretation of Scripture is not an authority in of itself, and neither is it infallible. So even if you consider it an "authority", it still does not operate as an infallible rule of faith, like Scripture. Therefore, sola scriptura still remains.
And I have to point out, again, that if you believe sola scriptura can't function as a rule of faith, then neither can Tradition for the exact same reasons you're arguing for sola scriptura. Tradition can't function as a rule of faith, because Tradition requires interpretation, right? And don't you need an infallible interpretation... for the interpretation? And so on, and so on? If you're looking for reductio ad absurdum, there it is. Ultimately, this reduces down to everyone having to interpret for themselves, and so guess what - we're all "our own popes" now!
What you're arguing is epistemology. But epistemology does not invalidate sola scriptura, not at all. Here's an example of what you're doing: answer this - were the Ten Commandments an infallible rule of faith for Israel, and could it function as such? If you say yes, then you're contradicting what you're arguing. If you're consistent with what you're arguing, you'll say "no", and there is your problem. You're saying that the Ten Commandments can't function as a rule of faith for the Israelis. Can you not see that this isn't rational?
The Ten Commandments didn't function as a rule of faith because they were a text, they functioned because they were interpreted and enforced by a living, God-appointed authority…exactly what sola scriptura denies.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?
This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.
By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"
I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.
I've got you cornered with reductio ad absurdum. You can't solve self referential paradox, that's why you're at a loss.
No infallible mechanism exists to identify, interpret, or apply that authority. The text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter. At that point, interpretation becomes the de facto authority, whether acknowledged or not.
If I ask you to establish doctrine, you can't do it by appealing to your infallible rule of scripture alone. You have to bring your interpretation/authority into the equation. If your infallible rule cannot itself rule…then what's it good for?
I don't think it's ok to have different interpretations. Its demonic. I'm appealing to apostolic succession, not "tradition alone." The same apostolic authority that gave us Scripture and canon is the authority that guards and interprets it. Without that, interpretation becomes the highest authority by default
Sir, the one who's at a loss is the one who constantly avoids questions, misunderstands concepts, and who can't apply logical concepts correctly.
By stating "the text may be infallible, but every appeal to it is mediated by a fallible interpreter", you're STILL mixing up sola scriptura with the interpretation of Scripture, not realizing they are separate concepts, and ironically enough, not realizing that if you actually are cornering anything, then you're "cornering" yourself and your view of infallible Tradition with "reductio ad absurdum" in the EXACT SAME WAY that you think you're doing it against sola scriptura. Mothra is also pointing that out to you, to no avail.
And if really did care about "apostolic succession", you'd be highly concerned that your church anathematizes the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention how your church credits Mary for our salvation in your liturgy. But at this point, it's clear that you really don't care, you only care about justifying your beliefs, Scripture and early church history be damned (quite literally).
You're treating sola scriptura as a claim only about sources.
I'm critiquing it as a claim about authority and functionality.
I'm accurately pointing out that your system can't operate without smuggling in another authority.
Yes, two churches can claim to derive doctrine only from Scripture and still disagree. That alone doesn't "falsify" sola scriptura as a slogan. That's not my argument.
The problem is this: when those interpretations conflict, sola scriptura provides no authoritative mechanism to determine which doctrine is correct.
That is not "confusing Scripture with interpretation."
I'm recognizing that whatever settles doctrine is the authority.
You asked "Has sola scriptura been violated or falsified if two churches disagree?" No, it has been shown to be insufficient.
You keep insisting Scripture and interpretation are "separate concepts." I agree. That's exactly why sola scriptura fails, because the authority that actually determines doctrine is not Scripture, but interpretation.
So how does your view of Tradition being an infallible source of authority escape this same "critique" of yours for sola scriptura?
And do you realize, and will admit, that your critique is not falsifying sola scriptura?
My view isn't "Tradition floating on its own" as an infallible source. I'm appealing to apostolic authority continuing in the Church. That authority is not an abstract tradition or a set of texts: it's a living, identifiable body with the power to define, preserve, and adjudicate doctrine.
I've argued this entire time that sola scriptura can't actually function as a rule of faith. Can you argue otherwise and provide an example?
Scripture is the only way to appeal to apostolic authority, being that Scripture is the ony thing we have that we know came from the apostles. This is established fact, highlighted by the fact that neither you nor anyone else has been able to prove otherwise.
I am at a loss to explain why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Scripture functions as the sole infallible rule of faith when all your beliefs either come from Scripture, or when Scripture is the final standard by which all your beliefs are weighed against. You aren't arguing that sola scriptura can't function as a rule of faith - what you're actually doing, is arguing that sola scriptura is dependent on interpretation. But as long as the interpretation is of Scripture and it's the basis of your rule of faith, then sola scriptura is STILL functioning as the sole infallible rule of faith. It doesn't matter what the interpretation is. One's interpretation of Scripture is not an authority in of itself, and neither is it infallible. So even if you consider it an "authority", it still does not operate as an infallible rule of faith, like Scripture. Therefore, sola scriptura still remains.
And I have to point out, again, that if you believe sola scriptura can't function as a rule of faith, then neither can Tradition for the exact same reasons you're arguing for sola scriptura. Tradition can't function as a rule of faith, because Tradition requires interpretation, right? And don't you need an infallible interpretation... for the interpretation? And so on, and so on? If you're looking for reductio ad absurdum, there it is. Ultimately, this reduces down to everyone having to interpret for themselves, and so guess what - we're all "our own popes" now!
What you're arguing is epistemology. But epistemology does not invalidate sola scriptura, not at all. Here's an example of what you're doing: answer this - were the Ten Commandments an infallible rule of faith for Israel, and could it function as such? If you say yes, then you're contradicting what you're arguing. If you're consistent with what you're arguing, you'll say "no", and there is your problem. You're saying that the Ten Commandments can't function as a rule of faith for the Israelis. Can you not see that this isn't rational?
Deuteronomy 17:812:
"If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another… you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall consult the Levitical priests and the judge who is in office… According to the decision that they declare to you, you shall do… The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest or the judge… shall die."
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
A better translation is "those who do not."
Yep this was in reference directly to iconoclasts. Neither Orthodoxy or RC claim refusal to venerate icons equals damnation lolSam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
A better translation is "those who do not."
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
A better translation is "those who do not."
Which would include those who "struggle, hesitate, or don't understand" because it's a positive requirement, right?
Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
A better translation is "those who do not."
Yep this was in reference directly to iconoclasts. Neither Orthodoxy or RC claim refusal to venerate icons equals damnation lol
It's apparently acceptable for an ecumenical council to anathematize Arians for denying Christ's divinity, for them to establish the Holy Trinity because many Christians were denying Christ's divinity…but somehow illegitimate to anathematize iconoclasts for denying the visible reality of the Incarnation.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
A better translation is "those who do not."
Which would include those who "struggle, hesitate, or don't understand" because it's a positive requirement, right?
Not necessarily.
They're alive in Christ.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?
"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?
Whatever you want to call it.
It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.
You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.
All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.
I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.
I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.
We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.
Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."
"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"
And Circular Sam goes on.....
A better translation is "those who do not."
Yep this was in reference directly to iconoclasts. Neither Orthodoxy or RC claim refusal to venerate icons equals damnation lol
It's apparently acceptable for an ecumenical council to anathematize Arians for denying Christ's divinity, for them to establish the Holy Trinity because many Christians were denying Christ's divinity…but somehow illegitimate to anathematize iconoclasts for denying the visible reality of the Incarnation.
For God's sake, man. What is wrong with you guys?There really has to be something mentally wrong with you guys. Do you really think that because Jesus came in the flesh, that it means bowing and praying to or through images of departed people is okay, and that not doing so is a "denial of the Incarnation"?
- The early church was universally iconoclastic.
- There was a positive requirement to venerate icons upon pain of anathema.
- An anathema was defined as a "separation from God" and being "expelled from God's kingdom"
My God.
