Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, literally every single Christian I've ever met believes that the Vatican councils were infallible and treat their rulings as such.

I've made the statements before that people like Jon Miller, Imran, etc. are not real Christians, but are attempting to force the square blocks of their modern sensibilities into the round holes of Christianity.

[loinburger]

Who elected you King Christian?

All you're doing is applying your authoritarian sensibilities to somebody else's religion. "An Important Christian said such-and-such, so all Christians must believe it! An Important Book says such-and-such, and Christians are required to treat the book as infallible!"

[Al B. Sure!]

Who elected you King Christian?

It's what the faith is. Read the Bible.

[loinburger]

It's what the faith is. Read the Bible.

The two are not equivalent, you twit. Just because you have a slavish devotion to authority doesn't mean that everybody else needs to follow suit.

Not surprisingly, you're also using the same circular logic that the fundamentalists use. "The Bible says it is correct, therefore it is correct." "But what if it is incorrect, and therefore the part about being correct is also incorrect?" "Heretic!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Directly in the verse which slaveholders might use to defend slavery:

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

I was thinking about the one that calls for slaves to obey their masters.

Ephesians 6:5-8 (NIV)

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

[loinburger]

It's what the faith is. Read the Bible.

Let me see if I've understood your argument:

1a. The Bible says it is infallible, therefore it is infallible
1b. Some humans also say it is infallible
=> 2. Therefore the Bible is infallible

Has this convinced you that the Bible is infallible? No? Then why the hell are you making the argument?

[Al B. Sure!]

Let me see if I've understood your argument:

1a. The Bible says it is infallible, therefore it is infallible
1b. Some humans also say it is infallible
=> 2. Therefore the Bible is infallible

Has this convinced you that the Bible is infallible? No? Then why the hell are you making the argument?

That's Christianity in a nut-shell.

[Elok]

This reminds me of the time Al tried to tell us that the Bible forbade drinking alcohol. He didn't mention what kind of toilets they used, though...

[Elok]

As Machiavelli said, to look at a mountain, stand in a valley, and to look at a valley, stand atop a mountain. Naturally, to know who the real Christians are, we should consult a twentysomething ex-Muslim atheist, just like far-right talk show hosts of an Evangelical persuasion know best what the Koran does and doesn't tell Muslims to do...

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." -Vatican II

Read the statement carefully. Does it in any way state that the every little thing is inerrant in terms of history or science? (Especially considering that the Catholic Church has always been ok with Darwin?) It says that it, without error, teaches that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to Scripture. Does the history or science of it all matter for the sake of our salvation?

Infallibility is a far different animal than inerrancy.

[loinburger]

That's Christianity in a nut-shell.

Islam in a nutshell is growing beards and swinging sabers and blowing things up. Atheism in a nutshell is that Richard Dawkins is our infallible leader. Scientology in a nutshell is actually pretty ****ed up so that's not a good example, but you get the point (the point being that you are wrong and dumb and live in Philadelphia)

[Elok]

This is part of Al's ongoing "I mentally construct my own version of reality based on limited information, then act cranky when actual reality contradicts my version" series.

[Al B. Sure!]

Read the statement carefully. Does it in any way state that the every little thing is inerrant in terms of history or science? (Especially considering that the Catholic Church has always been ok with Darwin?) It says that it, without error, teaches that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to Scripture. Does the history or science of it all matter for the sake of our salvation?

Infallibility is a far different animal than inerrancy.

We're not talking science, here. We're talking morality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What exactly in terms of morality? The Catholic Church reads Biblical texts in terms of their context. It doesn't demand head coverings for women because that passage was not meant to apply to all believers in all times, but rather to that church in the context of that era. I do think it wrong on the issues of female priests and homosexuality, but mostly because I think their interpretation is lacking.

[loinburger]

We're not talking science, here. We're talking morality.

Sorry, are you saying that morality isn't relative to a given time/place? You've just been kicked out of the Atheist Club